term_parents"What broader phenotype is [HP:N] under" / "parent term of [HPO ID]" — direct parents of an HPO term in the ontology graph. Use to walk up to a more general phenotype class.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc. Description adds critical behavioral detail: returns only *direct* parents, not all ancestors, which is beyond annotation scope.
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, zero waste. Front-loaded with the tool's core question and purpose, immediately followed by usage guidance.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. With only one required parameter, low complexity, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete for correct agent selection.
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% (no description for params), so description must compensate. It identifies the parameter as an 'HPO ID' and gives a usage example, but does not specify format or constraints. Minimal but adequate given low complexity.
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 verb+resource: retrieve direct parents of an HPO term. It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like term_children and term_descendants by indicating 'walk up to a more general phenotype class'.
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 says 'Use to walk up to a more general phenotype class,' providing clear context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but sibling names (term_children, term_descendants) imply opposite directions.
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.
Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap among the Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_kalshi_spread) and between ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence. Detailed descriptions help, but some tools could still be confused.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., ai_visibility_check, resolve_entity, validate_claim). No mixing of conventions.
With 27 tools spanning HPO, data queries, betting, memory, and utilities, the server is over-scoped. It aggregates multiple domains that would be better split into separate servers. The count feels excessive for a coherent set.
Within each domain (HPO ontology, Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, etc.), the tool surface is reasonably complete. However, the overall server lacks a single clear purpose, making it hard to assess completeness holistically.