support_helenaLearn about the separate Helena Good MCP. This opt-in information action initiates no payment or outreach and changes no scientific result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false; the description adds genuinely valuable reassurance that invoking the tool 'initiates no payment or outreach and changes no scientific result.' That guards against an agent wrongly assuming the 'Support' title triggers a donation. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two tight sentences, both earning their place: the first front-loads the core purpose, the second removes any misconception about payment/outreach. Only minor loss — it is terse on what the Helena Good MCP is — 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?
For a parameterless tool that has its own output schema, the description gives the agent everything needed to safely invoke it: read-only, idempotent, and side-effect free. There is no critical missing detail for correct invocation.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so the 100% coverage baseline (score 4) applies; there is nothing for the description to explain about params. It correctly focuses on the action's semantics and lack of side effects instead.
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?
Delivers a specific verb ('Learn about') and resource ('the separate Helena Good MCP'), and clarifies the action is purely informational — which sets it apart from the sibling data-retrieval tools. Some vagueness remains about what the Helena Good MCP actually is and what 'support' entails, keeping it from a 5.
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 description only implicitly differentiates this from the sibling data-access tools (get_corpus_summary, search_biomedical_literature, etc.) by labeling itself an information action. It never states explicitly when to reach for it, when not to, or names any alternative as a fallback.
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.
The search and corpus tools are clearly distinct, and the two detail and two neighborhood tools are parallel but differentiated by identifier type (PMID vs. Noodle work ID). The main ambiguity is that get_publication_details and get_work_details both retrieve full records, so agents must understand which identifier they have. support_helena is unrelated but unambiguously separated.
Most tools follow a consistent snake_case get_<resource>_<scope> pattern, and search_biomedical_literature fits the retrieval theme. support_helena is a minor outlier because it uses a different action verb and target, but it does not break the overall naming style.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a read-only literature discovery server: corpus summary, semantic search, two lookup modes, two neighborhood exploration modes, and one support action. The count feels intentional and each tool serves a distinct part of the discovery workflow.
The read-only discovery surface is largely complete with corpus metadata, search, detailed record retrieval, and neighborhood exploration. A minor gap is that direct retrieval is only by PMID or Noodle work ID, not by DOI/PMCID, though search can serve as a workaround.