Skip to main content
Glama

Nih Reporter

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Search Publications

search_publications
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search publications acknowledging NIH funding. Filter by PMID, application ID, or core project number. Useful for "what came out of this grant" follow-ups.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoResults per page (1-500, default 25)
pmidsNoComma-separated PubMed IDs
offsetNoPagination offset
appl_idsNoComma-separated NIH application IDs
core_project_numsNoComma-separated core project numbers (e.g., "R01CA123456")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
totalYesTotal number of matching publications
returnedYesNumber of publications returned in this response
publicationsYesArray of publication records

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "appl_ids": "10812345,10812346",
+    "limit": 25
+  },
+  {
+    "limit": 50,
+    "pmids": "35641234,35641235"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "publications": {
+      "description": "Array of publication records",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "appl_id": {
+            "description": "NIH application ID",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "core_project_num": {
+            "description": "Core project number",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "pmid": {
+            "description": "PubMed ID",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "pubmed_url": {
+            "description": "Direct link to PubMed record",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "returned": {
+      "description": "Number of publications returned in this response",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "total": {
+      "description": "Total number of matching publications",
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "total",
+    "returned",
+    "publications"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond reiterating the search purpose. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given the rich annotations and schema (including output schema), the description is adequately complete. It covers the primary purpose and use case, though it could mention pagination behavior (but schema already covers limit and offset).

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter described. The description mentions the three filter types (PMID, appl_id, core_project_nums) as in the schema, but does not add new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'search' and the resource 'publications acknowledging NIH funding'. It lists specific filters (PMID, application ID, core project number) and provides a use case ('what came out of this grant' follow-ups), distinguishing it from siblings like search_grants.

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 explicitly provides a use context ('useful for follow-ups') and mentions the filtering options. While it does not directly name alternatives, the sibling tools (e.g., search_grants) are listed in context, making the usage guidance clear enough.

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

All Nih Reporter toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources