Skip to main content
Glama

Get Descriptor

get_descriptor
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get full detail for a MeSH descriptor by its ID (e.g. "D003920" = Diabetes Mellitus): its preferred label, entry terms (synonyms MeSH indexes under it), allowable qualifiers (subheadings like "drug therapy", "epidemiology"), and related see-also headings. Keyless.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "mesh_id": "D003920"
    },
    "name": "get_descriptor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mesh_idYesA MeSH descriptor ID, e.g. "D003920" (Diabetes Mellitus) or "D001241" (Aspirin).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
      +  {
      +    "mesh_id": "D003920"
      +  },
      +  {
      +    "mesh_id": "D001241"
      +  }
      +]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned and noting the tool is 'Keyless' (no authentication). For a simple retrieval tool, this is sufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and resource. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, but the description covers the main return fields. It does not mention error handling or what happens with invalid IDs, but for a simple get-by-ID tool, the description is largely complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema by providing examples and clarifying the format of the mesh_id parameter (e.g., 'D003920' = Diabetes Mellitus).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('MeSH descriptor'), and what is returned (preferred label, entry terms, qualifiers, see-also). The example ID 'D003920 = Diabetes Mellitus' and the phrase 'by its ID' differentiate it from sibling search tools like search_descriptors.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use when you have a specific MeSH ID, providing examples of ID format. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., use search_descriptors if you don't have an ID).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.