Folklore Clinical Variant Interpretation MCP

Search the Folklore Literature Corpus

search_literature_corpus

Read-onlyIdempotent

Semantically search the public scientific Literature Corpus by a natural-language question. A question may include one or more PMID, DOI or PMCID references; those publications become exact anchors for finding related experiments, evidence and concepts across the corpus. Also accepts genes, variants, phenotypes, HPO and OMIM concepts. Include every known publication identifier in the query when the user asks to compare papers or find work related to a specific paper. Returns source-linked evidence candidates for professional review, not diagnoses, causality claims or treatment recommendations.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sort`	No	Result ordering: relevance-ranked, newest publication first, or oldest publication first.	relevance
`limit`	No	Maximum number of publications to return, from 1 to 25.
`query`	Yes	Natural-language literature question or exact PMID, DOI, PMCID, gene, variant, phenotype, HPO, or OMIM query. Include every known publication identifier when comparing or finding related papers.
`cursor`	No	Opaque continuation cursor from the preceding response for the same query and sort order; omit for the first page.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`results`	Yes
`has_more`	No
`graph_used`	No
`next_cursor`	No
`graph_version`	No
`returned_count`	Yes
`usage_boundary`	Yes
`contract_version`	Yes
`searchable_fields`	Yes
`semantic_index_used`	No
`graph_degraded_reason`	No
`semantic_degraded_reason`	No

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful context by stating it returns 'source-linked evidence candidates for professional review, not diagnoses, causality claims or treatment recommendations.' This safety caveat goes beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Three sentences front-load the core purpose, provide a concrete usage rule, and close with an important caveat. There is no filler or repetition of schema contents.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only search tool with a rich output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential invocation behavior, accepted input classes, and professional-review caveat. It is slightly incomplete only in not routing the agent between overlapping sibling search tools.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents query, sort, limit, and cursor well. The description reinforces the query semantics (e.g., PMID/DOI/PMCID as anchors) but adds little parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource: semantically search the public scientific Literature Corpus by natural-language question, and lists accepted identifier/concept types. It is clear on its own, but the title's 'Folklore Literature Corpus' conflicts slightly with the description's 'scientific Literature Corpus,' and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling search_variant_literature.

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?

The description gives concrete usage guidance: include every known publication identifier when the user wants to compare papers or find work related to a specific paper. It establishes clear context but does not state when not to use this tool versus sibling search tools such as search_variant_literature.

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

All Folklore Clinical Variant Interpretation MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct roles: evidence/classification, variant-specific literature, broad literature search, publication details, and an auxiliary support action. The main ambiguity is between search_literature_corpus and search_variant_literature, though their descriptions clarify that one is a general semantic search and the other resolves a specific variant's publications.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_publication_details, search_literature_corpus, search_variant_evidence, search_variant_literature, and support_helena. The naming convention is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is a well-scoped count for a clinical variant interpretation server. Each tool contributes to literature search, variant evidence, publication retrieval, or explicit support infrastructure, without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow is covered: find literature, retrieve publication details, resolve a variant, obtain ACMG/AMP evidence, and find variant-specific publications. Minor gaps exist for batch variant handling or larger/structural variants, but within the stated GRCh38 SNV/indel scope the surface is reasonably complete.

Search the Folklore Literature Corpus

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources