get_snpGWAS Catalog: look up a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) by rsID. Returns functional class, chromosome/region locations, and mapped genes (with up/downstream + distance). Keyless, from EBI/NHGRI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rsid | Yes | dbSNP rsID, e.g. "rs7329174". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "rsid": "rs7329174"
+ },
+ {
+ "rsid": "rs1234567"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=true. The description adds source (EBI/NHGRI) and keyless access, which provides some behavioral context but does not significantly extend beyond the 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 sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with tool name and source, then details. Every word serves a purpose.
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 lookup tool with rich annotations and a single parameter, the description covers source, keyless access, and output content. Missing details on output format or error cases, but acceptable given annotations and schema.
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 100% with a single parameter 'rsid' well-documented in the schema (type, description, example). The description repeats 'by rsID' but adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 looks up a SNP by rsID from the GWAS Catalog, specifying the data returned (functional class, location, mapped genes). The verb 'look up' and resource 'SNP' are precise, and the context 'GWAS Catalog' distinguishes it from generic SNP retrieval tools.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'snp_associations'. The description mentions 'keyless' but does not address prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another tool would be preferred.
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.