keyword"UniProt keyword KW-N info" / "what does keyword [X] mean" — fetch a UniProt controlled-vocabulary keyword by ID. Use to look up annotation tags like "Kinase" / "Membrane" / "Disease-associated".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Keyword ID (e.g. KW-0007) | |
| name | No | Keyword name | |
| category | No | Keyword category | |
| synonyms | No | Alternative keyword names | |
| definition | No | Keyword definition |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about fetching controlled-vocabulary info by ID. It does not contradict annotations, and adds value by describing the type of information retrieved (annotation tags).
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 highly concise: one sentence plus a short usage hint. It front-loads the purpose and includes examples, with no wasted words.
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?
With only one required parameter and an existing output schema (as per context), the description adequately covers the use case. A minor gap: it does not explicitly specify the exact format pattern for the keyword_id (e.g., 'KW-NNNN'), but the example makes it clear.
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 coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter description in schema. The description explains the parameter as a UniProt keyword ID (e.g., 'KW-0002') and provides examples, adding meaning beyond the schema's mere 'string' type.
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 verb 'fetch' and the resource 'UniProt controlled-vocabulary keyword by ID', with specific examples of usage. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which target UniProt keywords.
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 example phrases and contexts for use (looking up annotation tags like 'Kinase', 'Membrane'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the usage context is clear and there are no competing sibling tools for this task.
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.