List all indications on mechoulam.de with slug, name, category, count of reviewed studies and the citable page URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language of the answer and of the cited source URL. 'de' (default) cites mechoulam.de/..., 'en' cites mechoulam.de/en/... |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope ('all indications') and expected fields, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, completeness guarantees, or response shape beyond field names.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single well-structured sentence places the core action first and lists fields compactly. No filler or duplication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only list with one optional parameter, the description names the output fields and scope, which is nearly sufficient. It lacks only explicit ordering/pagination details, which are unlikely to be critical for an enumeration endpoint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%; lang is fully described in the schema. The description does not add language nuances or default behavior beyond what the schema states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('indications on mechoulam.de'), and enumerates the returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling get_indication, which appears to target a single indication.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'List all indications' clearly implies an enumeration use case, but the description never names alternatives like get_indication or states when to prefer this tool. No explicit exclusions or conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Search and list_indications are clearly distinct, but fetch overlaps with get_indication and get_study since it also retrieves a full record by ID. The descriptions help somewhat, but an agent could reasonably struggle to choose between the generic fetch and the more specific getters.
list_indications, get_indication, and get_study follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, but search and fetch are one-word verbs that break the convention. The mix is readable but not fully predictable.
Five tools is a well-scoped surface for a read-only evidence register. Each tool covers a necessary part of discovery and retrieval without unnecessary bloat.
The register's core workflow is covered: search across records, list indications, and retrieve detailed indication summaries or individual studies. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit list-studies endpoint, but search and fetch can fill that need in most cases.
