geneAnnotations for a single gene id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | ||
| gene_id | Yes | Entrez id ("7157") or Ensembl id ("ENSG00000141510"). | |
| species | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _id | No | Gene ID | |
| name | No | Gene name | |
| taxid | No | NCBI taxonomy ID | |
| symbol | No | Gene symbol | |
| entrezgene | No | Entrez gene ID | |
| description | No | Gene description | |
| ensemblgene | No | Ensembl gene ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "gene_id": "7157"
+ },
+ {
+ "fields": "symbol,name,taxid",
+ "gene_id": "ENSG00000141510"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "_id": {
+ "description": "Gene ID",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "description": "Gene description",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ensemblgene": {
+ "description": "Ensembl gene ID",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "entrezgene": {
+ "description": "Entrez gene ID",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "number"
+ ]
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Gene name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "symbol": {
+ "description": "Gene symbol",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "taxid": {
+ "description": "NCBI taxonomy ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds only 'single gene id', which is also visible in the schema, and provides no additional behavioral context about what annotations entail or how results are structured.
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 one short sentence with no wasteful words. It is appropriately concise, though it borders on under-specification, but this is a matter of completeness rather than conciseness.
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 are covered. However, the description is too sparse to compensate for the low schema coverage of fields and species. An agent would need to rely heavily on examples, making the tool harder to invoke correctly without additional context.
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 description coverage is only 33% (only gene_id is described). The tool description does not clarify the meaning of 'fields' or 'species', and the schema examples only hint at usage. The description adds no semantic value to the parameters.
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 indicates the tool provides annotations for a single gene ID, which distinguishes it from generic entity tools like entity_profile or metadata. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'returns', but the noun phrase is still specific enough.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, recommended contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.
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.