single_tissue_eqtlsSignificant single-tissue eQTLs for a gene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tissue | No | ||
| gencode_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "gencode_id": "ENSG00000012048.14",
+ "tissue": "Whole_Blood"
+ },
+ {
+ "gencode_id": "ENSG00000141510.16"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Significant single-tissue eQTLs for a gene",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., significance threshold, data source, or return format).
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?
Single sentence is efficient with no redundancy, but could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.
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 tool with an output schema, the description is minimal; lacks parameter details and contextual information needed for an agent to use it 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain any parameters; 'gencode_id' and 'tissue' remain undefined in meaning or format.
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?
Description clearly states it returns significant single-tissue eQTLs for a gene, but fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'tissues' or 'median_expression'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no context on prerequisites or typical use.
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.