Search Europe PMC and log every retrieved article to the audit trail.
Args:
query: exact search string, sent to Europe PMC verbatim — no normalization
agent_id: which agent is asking, e.g. "aletheia:advocate"
max_results: how many articles to retrieve (default 5)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, conveying that this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent operation. The description usefully adds that every retrieved article is logged to an audit trail, which is a side effect beyond what annotations state. However, it does not explain what the audit log is, where it goes, or whether logging can fail.
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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and then lists parameters compactly. The Args-style formatting is efficient and every line adds information. It is appropriately sized for a tool with three undocumented parameters.
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 search tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the parameters and one behavioral side effect (audit logging). However, it omits what the search returns (fields, pagination, result shape), which is important given no output schema. It is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to use the results confidently.
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 0%, so the description carries the parameter burden. It defines all three parameters: query (exact, no normalization), agent_id (with an example value), and max_results (default 5). This is strong compensation for an undocumented schema, though it does not specify the result format or any query syntax limits.
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?
States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Europe PMC) plus a secondary action (log to audit trail). It is distinguishable from sibling literature search tools like search_pubmed and search_biorxiv by naming Europe PMC specifically. However, it does not explicitly say why to choose it over those siblings beyond the source name.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. The description mentions it searches Europe PMC, but with siblings search_pubmed and search_biorxiv present, an agent gets no criteria for selecting this tool over them. The audit logging is mentioned but not framed as a selection reason.
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.