metadataReturns MyDisease.info build metadata: total disease document count, available annotation sources (MONDO, DOID, OMIM, DisGeNET, HPO, CTD), and their current release versions.
This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "metadata"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds specific behavioral context by detailing the returned data (count, sources, versions), which goes 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys all necessary information without any waste.
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?
The description covers the key output elements (count, sources, versions) but could be slightly enhanced by specifying the output format or structure. However, it is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.
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?
The input schema has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning; it correctly focuses on the output.
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?
The description clearly states the tool returns build metadata including total disease count, annotation sources, and versions. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'disease' or 'query'.
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?
The tool has no parameters and is self-explanatory as a metadata retriever. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, its purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
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.