search_genesSearch SGD (Saccharomyces Genome Database, the authoritative budding-yeast / S. cerevisiae genetics resource) for genes, loci, alleles, and other entities by free-text query. Returns matching hits with their name, category, and href. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 15). | |
| query | Yes | Free-text search, e.g. a gene name like ADE2. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "ADE2"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "DNA repair"
+ }
+]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 minor context about return fields (name, category, href) and the database authority, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits, which would add value 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff. Extremely efficient.
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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description covers the database, searchable entities, and return fields. Minor gaps: no mention of pagination, default limit, or ordering, but overall sufficient for basic usage.
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 documents both parameters well. The description reinforces the free-text nature and 'Keyless' hint, but adds no new semantic details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states the tool searches SGD for genes and other entities via free-text query, specifying the authoritative resource and entity types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_gene by being keyless (free-text) versus key-based retrieval.
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 implies usage for free-text searches via 'Keyless' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_gene or give when-not scenarios. The guidance is vague, leaving the agent to infer context.
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.