prefixesPaginate over all registered Bioregistry prefixes (2,000+); returns full prefix records for each entry. Use limit/offset to page through the complete registry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | Total count of prefixes | |
| prefixes | Yes | Slice of prefix entries |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 20,
+ "offset": 0
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 50,
+ "offset": 100
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Paginated list of all prefixes",
+ "properties": {
+ "prefixes": {
+ "description": "Slice of prefix entries",
+ "items": {
+ "description": "Prefix metadata object",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "description": "Total count of prefixes",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "total",
+ "prefixes"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) and idempotency. The description adds that it returns full records and requires pagination, which is valuable context beyond 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 concise sentences: first states purpose and content, second explains usage. No fluff, front-loaded with key 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?
Given the tool is a paginated list with an output schema that likely describes the record structure, the description provides sufficient context (scope, content, pagination mechanism). Number of entries (2,000+) sets expectations.
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 0%, so the burden falls on the description. It mentions limit/offset for pagination but lacks details like default values or behavior. Examples in schema provide some guidance, but the description could be more explicit.
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 clearly states the tool paginates over all registered Bioregistry prefixes (2,000+) and returns full prefix records, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'prefix' which likely fetches a single entry.
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?
Explicitly instructs using limit/offset for pagination, and the sibling 'prefix' implies when a single prefix is needed. Lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the context is clear.
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.