searchAutocomplete-style search across gnomAD genes and variants by free-text query; returns matching Ensembl gene IDs with symbols, and matching variant IDs (an rsid resolves here). Use to resolve a partial gene name, symbol or rsid before calling gene or variant.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gene_search | No | Gene search results |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "BRCA1"
+ },
+ {
+ "query": "rs1801133"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "gene_search": {
+ "description": "Gene search results",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "ensembl_id": {
+ "description": "Ensembl gene ID",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "symbol": {
+ "description": "Gene symbol",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate these. It adds that results are matching IDs, but does not detail edge cases like no matches or response format. Given the annotations, this level of detail is adequate.
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?
The description is two sentences, concise and direct, with no redundant information. It front-loads the core function and then gives usage context, making it easy to parse.
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 simple search tool, the description covers purpose, input semantics, and output type. It does not describe pagination or error handling, but these are not critical for basic usage. Combined with annotations and sibling context, it is complete enough.
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?
The single parameter 'query' is described as a free-text query and specifically as a partial gene name, symbol, or rsid in the usage line. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw string type, covering the schema fully.
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's function: an autocomplete-style search across gnomAD genes and variants by free-text query, returning matching Ensembl gene IDs and variant IDs. It also explicitly positions it as a precursor to 'gene' and 'variant' tools, distinguishing it from siblings.
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 to 'use to resolve a partial gene name, symbol or rsid before calling gene or variant,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the framing as a resolver implies it is for partial queries, which is sufficient.
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.