Skip to main content
Glama

SiteCheck Web Intel

Medscape eMedicine clinical articles by specialty: title

search_emedicine_articles
Read-only

Medscape eMedicine (Medscape Reference) clinical articles by specialty: title, topic category, article id and URL from the public specialty index, filtered by words in the title. With details=true the first 5 matches also get summary, author, last-reviewed date and paywall flag from the article page. Metadata only, no article text (Medscape articles need a free login). Related tools on this server, for a different need: search_dev_to_articles when you need DEV Community latest articles for one tag: title, author; search_europe_pmc_articles when you need Europe PMC literature search: PMID or source id, title. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "specialty": "<specialty>"
    },
    "name": "search_emedicine_articles"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoWords that must all appear in the article title (optional, max 100 characters)
limitNoHow many articles, 1 to 200 (default 25)
detailsNotrue = add summary, author and last-reviewed date for the first 5 results (default false)
specialtyYesSpecialty index, one of: allergy_immunology, cardiology, clinical_procedures, critical_care, dermatology, emergency_medicine, endocrinology, gastroenterology, general_surgery, genomics, hematology, infectious_diseases, nephrology, neurology, neurosurgery, obstetrics_gynecology, oncology, ophthalmology, orthopedic_surgery, otolaryngology, pathology, pediatrics_cardiac, pediatrics_development, pediatrics_general, pediatrics_genetics, pediatrics_surgery, perioperative_care, plastic_surgery, psychiatry, pulmonology, rehabilitation, rheumatology, sports_medicine, thoracic_surgery, trauma, urology, vascular_surgery

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNo
countNo
sourceNo
matchesNo
articlesNo
checkedAtNo
specialtyNo
totalInIndexNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial behavior: results are metadata only because Medscape articles require a free login, details=true enriches only the first 5 matches, and each successful call costs $0.002 via x402 with failed calls uncharged. That payment/auth disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey. It stops short of noting pagination or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the details=true behavior, the access limitation, the alternatives, and finally pricing. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is filler despite the density.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter, read-only search with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers scope, filter semantics, enrichment behavior, content limits, cost, and sibling routing. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that matching is against title words and that the enriched fields include a paywall flag (not listed in the schema) and apply only to the first 5 matches. It says nothing extra about limit or specialty beyond the enum already in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific source (Medscape eMedicine clinical articles), the access path (public specialty index), and the filtering mechanism (words in the title), plus enumerates the fields returned. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear context and names two alternatives with the condition that selects them ('search_europe_pmc_articles when you need Europe PMC literature search'), and it states a when-not condition ('Metadata only, no article text'). It does not address the closer medical siblings such as search_pubmed_article_metadata or search_openprescribing, leaving some routing inference to the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources