queryFull-text gene query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | 1-1000 (default 10). | |
| sort | No | ||
| query | Yes | e.g. "BRCA1", "symbol:TP53 AND taxid:9606" | |
| fields | No | Comma-sep return fields. | |
| species | No | NCBI taxonomy id or common name (default human). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hits | No | Array of gene matches | |
| took | No | Query execution time in milliseconds | |
| total | No | Total number of matching genes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "BRCA1"
+ },
+ {
+ "query": "symbol:TP53 AND taxid:9606",
+ "size": 20
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "hits": {
+ "description": "Array of gene matches",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "_id": {
+ "description": "Gene ID",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "_score": {
+ "description": "Search relevance score",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Gene name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "symbol": {
+ "description": "Gene symbol",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "taxid": {
+ "description": "NCBI taxonomy ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "took": {
+ "description": "Query execution time in milliseconds",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "description": "Total number of matching genes",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as query syntax limitations, result paging, or scoping, failing to leverage the opportunity to inform 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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks structure or front-loaded key details, sacrificing clarity for brevity.
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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, an output schema, and a complex query language, a one-line description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, query behavior, or use context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 80%, which is above the high threshold, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, and the 'sort' parameter lacks description.
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 'Full-text gene query' indicates the tool searches genes via full-text, but it is ambiguous about the specific gene database, return behavior, and how it differs from sibling tools like 'gene' or 'query_many'. This is a clear verb+resource but lacks the specificity needed to fully distinguish it.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or situations where a sibling tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent without direction.
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.