get_citationsDEPRECATED ALIAS for pubmed_get_citations — identical behavior, kept for existing callers. New callers should use pubmed_get_citations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pmid | Yes | A single PubMed ID to find citing papers for (e.g., "24025838") | |
| limit | No | Number of citing papers to return (1-50, default 10) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 15,
+ "pmid": "24025838"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations by disclosing the deprecation status and the identical-behavior guarantee, which an agent cannot infer from structured fields alone.
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, tightly scoped sentence. The deprecation warning is front-loaded, and every word adds information. There is no padding or repetition of the tool name or title.
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?
For a deprecated alias, the description is complete enough: it explains the deprecation, points to the replacement, and the schema covers parameters. It does not define return values, but since this is an alias for an existing sibling, the canonical tool likely carries that detail. A small gap remains for agents that cannot resolve the sibling's behavior.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but it does not need to; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic load.
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 identifies the tool as a deprecated alias for pubmed_get_citations and states that behavior is identical. It does not independently state the underlying action, but the explicit link to the canonical sibling makes the purpose understandable and distinguishes it from other siblings.
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 explicitly tells new callers to use pubmed_get_citations instead, and clarifies that the tool exists only for existing callers. This is direct, actionable guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative.
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.