Search several scientific sources in one explicitly audited workflow.
Args:
query: scientific evidence query sent to each selected source
agent_id: calling agent or workflow identity
sources: any of pubmed, europepmc, clinicaltrials, uniprot, opentargets
max_results: maximum results to preserve per source (1-50)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| sources | No | ||
| 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 cover the safety profile (openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description usefully explains that readOnlyHint=false is because the workflow is 'explicitly audited', which prevents the false-from-a-search confusion. It does not disclose rate limits, auth requirements, per-source failure handling, or return format.
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?
One front-loaded sentence states the core behavior, followed by a compact Args block. Every line carries information with no filler, though the docstring-style parameter dump is slightly less scannable than inline prose.
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?
There is no output schema, yet the description says nothing about what is returned (per-source result grouping, aggregation format, pagination), which matters for a fan-out search across five heterogeneous sources. Parameters and purpose are covered, but the return contract 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 0%, so the description carries the burden and largely does: it enumerates the five valid source identifiers (which the schema lacks as enums) and gives the 1-50 range for max_results, plus clarifies query and agent_id. This meaningfully compensates for the empty schema annotations, though sources is not marked optional/required here.
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 (scientific sources), and the phrase 'several scientific sources in one' cleanly distinguishes it from the single-source siblings search_pubmed, search_europepmc, search_clinicaltrials, and search_biorxiv. An agent can tell it is the aggregator without opening any schema.
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 'in one explicitly audited workflow' phrasing implies the intended use case of multi-source aggregation, and listing valid sources hints at selection behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance versus the per-source search_* siblings. Usage is inferable but not stated.
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.