snp_associationsGWAS Catalog: get trait/disease associations for a SNP (rsID) — risk allele, p-value, odds ratio per copy, beta/effect size, and risk allele frequency. Keyless, from EBI/NHGRI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rsid | Yes | dbSNP rsID, e.g. "rs7329174". | |
| limit | No | Max associations to return (default 20). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "rsid": "rs7329174"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 50,
+ "rsid": "rs1234567"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the source (EBI/NHGRI) and keyless access, as well as the specific fields returned (risk allele, p-value, etc.), providing behavioral 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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and key details. No redundant or unnecessary information; every phrase contributes to understanding.
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?
Tool has only two simple parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations covering safety and idempotency. The description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and its source, making it complete for an agent to use. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or error handling, but overall adequate.
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 descriptions for both rsid and limit. The description does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does mention rsID and limit implicitly but no extra semantics.
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 retrieves trait/disease associations for a SNP from the GWAS Catalog, listing specific fields (risk allele, p-value, etc.) and the data source. It differentiates from siblings like get_snp and studies_by_trait by specifying the focus on associations with detailed effect sizes.
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?
Description mentions 'Keyless, from EBI/NHGRI' and provides examples, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like get_snp or studies_by_trait. No when-not or exclusionary context is provided.
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.