get_related_articlesDEPRECATED ALIAS for pubmed_get_related_articles — identical behavior, kept for existing callers. New callers should use pubmed_get_related_articles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pmid | Yes | A single PubMed ID to find neighbors for (e.g., "24025838") | |
| limit | No | Number of related articles to return (1-50, default 10) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 10,
+ "pmid": "24025838"
+ }
+]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 well covered. The description adds crucial behavioral context by disclosing the deprecation status and identical behavior to the canonical tool, which is genuinely useful beyond the 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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the deprecated status and directs callers to the correct alternative. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary elaboration or repetition.
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 with full parameter schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description provides complete routing guidance. It fully answers the key question an agent faces: should I use this tool, and if not, which one? No essential context is missing.
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 both parameters (pmid and limit) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, meaning the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; it does not need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 identifies this tool as a deprecated alias of pubmed_get_related_articles, which makes the purpose clear through its canonical sibling. It does not explicitly restate that it retrieves related articles, but the name and alias reference are sufficient for an agent to understand what it does.
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_related_articles instead, providing clear routing away from this tool. This is strong, direct usage guidance that distinguishes this deprecated alias from its preferred 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.