apibase

Search PubMed

education.pubmed.search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search 36M+ biomedical and life science articles — clinical trials, reviews, meta-analyses with date and type filters (PubMed/NCBI)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Number of results to return (1-50). Default: 10.
`query`	Yes	Search text for biomedical literature (e.g. "COVID-19 vaccine efficacy", "BRCA1 breast cancer").
`date_to`	No	End date filter in YYYY/MM/DD format (e.g. "2024/12/31").
`date_from`	No	Start date filter in YYYY/MM/DD format (e.g. "2023/01/01").
`publication_type`	No	Filter by publication type. Default: "any".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No	Present only when the call failed. Includes error code, message, request_id, and any provider-specific extras.
`result`	No	Tool response payload. Shape varies per tool — consult the tool description and inputSchema. May be an object, array, string, or number depending on the upstream provider response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 23, 2026
RemovedSep 23, 2026
First observedSep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds date and type filters which are in schema, but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations and schema provide.

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?

Single concise sentence front-loading key information (scope, count, filters). No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and filters. Could mention pagination or result structure but not necessary.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no extra semantic value. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it searches biomedical articles on PubMed, specifying scope and filters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like education.arxiv.search by naming PubMed/NCBI.

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 purpose and context are clear, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. However, the domain-specific nature provides adequate guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All apibase tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.