Busca semântica de papers
search_papers_semanticBusca vetorial sobre 424k papers do PubMed. Use caso clínico, pergunta ou conjunto de sintomas.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| min_score | No |
raras
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'vector search' and the corpus size, but does not clarify read-only status, return format, ordering, pagination, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words, and all content is relevant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too sparse. It should clarify result format, parameter effects, and any operational behavior to be considered complete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It gives guidance for the 'query' parameter (clinical case, question, symptoms) but completely omits explanation of 'limit' and 'min_score'. This partial coverage is insufficient.
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 a specific action: 'Busca vetorial sobre 424k papers do PubMed' (vector search over 424k PubMed papers). It distinguishes from sibling search tools by specifying the corpus and the semantic nature of the search.
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 second sentence provides explicit usage context: 'Use caso clínico, pergunta ou conjunto de sintomas' (use clinical case, question, or set of symptoms). This indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, but there is a cluster of 'find' tools (find_similar_diseases, find_phenotypically_similar, find_diseases_by_phenotypes) that could be confused; descriptions differentiate them (semantic vs HPO similarity vs exact match), and the paper search tools also differ by input type. Overall, ambiguous pairs are explicitly disambiguated, leaving only a few close calls.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools consistently follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern, using a limited set of verbs (analyze, explain, find, get, search) that map predictably to tool functionality. No mixed conventions or vague names are present, making the naming highly systematic.
Tool Count4/5
At 20 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal range of 3-15, but each tool serves a distinct function within the rare disease knowledge platform. The breadth of features—search, similarity, detail, evidence, literature, hypotheses, graph exploration—justifies the count without feeling bloated or redundant.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface comprehensively covers the rare disease domain: search, differential diagnosis, disease detail, evidence, SUS/trials, reference centers, literature, hypotheses, and graph analytics. Write operations are not expected for a read-only knowledge base, and the inclusion of research log and recent updates closes all apparent gaps.