interpro-mcp-server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the default taxon/review status, and the important caveat that isFragment=false does not prove a complete canonical sequence. Pagination and clamping behavior are left to the schema.

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?

Three front-loaded, dense sentences with no filler; the default scope is stated first. Minor redundancy with the isFragment schema description keeps it from a 5.

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?

With an output schema, full schema coverage, and annotations present, the description need only cover intent and defaults, which it does. The only gap is that it does not route the agent to the complement sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters thoroughly, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the reviewedOnly and isFragment semantics rather than adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Find UniProt proteins carrying an InterPro or member signature.' This clearly sets the domain-to-protein direction, which implicitly differentiates it from the reverse-direction sibling interpro_get_protein_domains, but no sibling is named.

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?

It establishes the default operating scope ('Defaults to reviewed human proteins') and explains the reviewedOnly=false alternative, which gives useful usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this over interpro_get_entry or interpro_get_protein_domains, nor any exclusion conditions.

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

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: pagination via cursor, optional relationship-graph inclusion, response-budget slicing, and relationshipOffset paging.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The primary operation comes first, and the optional relationship-graph behavior is appended efficiently.

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?

With a rich input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. The remaining details, such as limit clamping and sourceDatabase inference, are adequately handled by the schema rather than the description.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter documentation already carries the detail. The description reinforces cursor paging and relationshipOffset but does not add much beyond what the schema already explains for limit, sourceDatabase, includeThumbnail, and includeRelationships.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: retrieve a Pfam, CDD, or PIRSF clan/set plus a cursor page of member entries. That clan/set focus makes it distinguishable from the entry-, protein-, and search-oriented sibling tools without needing to name them.

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 use case is implied clearly enough: use this when you need clan/set metadata and members. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over interpro_get_entry, interpro_search_entries, or other siblings, nor does it state any exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so safety is covered. The description adds that the payload is a broad metadata bundle, but says nothing about what happens on an unknown accession, whether member-database vs InterPro accessions take different paths, or that responses can be large.

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-formed sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned-fields clause as secondary detail. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still gives a useful inventory of the payload sections. Only the edge-case behavior (bad accession, cross-database accession handling) is left unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents accession format, the sourceDatabase slug with prefix inference, and the thumbnail cost. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('one InterPro or member-database entry') and enumerates what comes back (description, hierarchy, signatures, GO terms, etc.). It does not name or contrast with siblings like interpro_search_entries or interpro_get_clan, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 word 'one' plus the required accession param implies single-record lookup rather than search, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus interpro_search_entries or interpro_get_clan, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations by disclosing segmentation behavior: results are returned as whole-match segments within a response budget, the first segment carries protein metadata, extra features follow the last match, and coverage.nextCursor is followed until hasMore is false. It also states that all locations and discontinuous fragments are preserved, which tells the agent not to expect collapsed coordinates.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and tail-loaded with pagination mechanics. The final sentence is dense and long but every clause conveys distinct information an agent needs; nothing is redundant.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description does not need to document return values, and it covers the one thing the schema cannot: how large results are segmented and how to continue. Combined with complete parameter coverage and safety annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke and iterate correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in structured fields. The description reinforces the residue-filter meaning and restates includeExtraFeatures placement, but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline holds.

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 and resource ('Retrieve InterPro and member-signature matches on a canonical UniProt protein') with the direction of the mapping made explicit, which distinguishes it from the reverse-direction sibling interpro_find_proteins_by_domain. It does not name that sibling directly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Use conditions are only implied through optional behaviors ('retain matches covering a residue', 'include extra predicted features'). No sibling is named as an alternative and there is no explicit when-not guidance, though the required-accession framing makes the entry point reasonably obvious.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the 'release' topic returns current upstream metadata, but says nothing about caching, freshness of the other topics, or size of the lists.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, covering all five topics compactly.

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?

With an output schema present there is no need to describe return values, and one required enum parameter is fully documented. Only the routing guidance to sibling tools is missing.

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% and the enum is self-documenting, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by glossing what each slug returns (database slugs, accession routing patterns, taxon IDs), which is meaning beyond the bare enum tokens.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus a concrete resource and an enumeration of the five reference topics, which is enough to distinguish it from the entry/protein lookup siblings. It is clear but does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied: the enumerated topics suggest this is the place to resolve vocabulary before calling search or get tools, but the description never states when to prefer it over interpro_search_entries or interpro_get_entry, nor any prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context — and it does, disclosing cursor paging and that results are summaries rather than full records. It leaves page-size clamping and filter-invariance rules to the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the core action followed by the two constraint notes and the follow-up pointer. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations handle the safety profile, so the description is nearly complete; it covers paging and the follow-up path. It omits the browse behavior (query omitted) and the limit clamp, both of which live only in the schema.

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%, so parameters are already documented; the description still adds genuine cross-parameter semantics by stating that GO filters require sourceDatabase=interpro and that integratedInto requires a member sourceDatabase. That constraint would otherwise be invisible to an agent.

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?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb and two distinct resources ('Search InterPro entries or member signatures'), which lets an agent tell it apart from interpro_get_entry or interpro_find_proteins_by_domain. It also names the sibling to use for detail lookups.

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?

It states concrete selection conditions — GO filters require sourceDatabase interpro, integratedInto targets member signatures — and routes to interpro_get_entry when full metadata is needed. It doesn't explicitly cover when to prefer interpro_find_proteins_by_domain, but the alternatives it does name are actionable.

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