Search ClinVar for genetic variants associated with a gene. Get clinical significance, conditions, and review status from NCBI ClinVar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gene | No | Gene symbol (default: BRCA1) | BRCA1 |
| limit | No | Number of variants (max 25, default 10) | |
| significance | No | pathogenic, benign, or uncertain | pathogenic |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns clinical significance, conditions, and review status, but lacks details on pagination, error handling, rate limits, or idempotence. The behavioral profile is adequately outlined but not exhaustive.
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 a single concise sentence of 16 words that front-loads the action and purpose. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
While the description gives a high-level overview of return content, it lacks explicit structure details (e.g., list format, fields per variant). Given no output schema, more detail would improve completeness, but the description is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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 100% with all parameters described in the schema. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, merely reiterating that the tool provides clinical significance, etc. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the tool searches ClinVar for genetic variants associated with a gene, specifying the verb (search), resource (ClinVar variants), and data retrieved (clinical significance, conditions, review status). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_nih_grants, which are unrelated.
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?
Usage context is implied by the description (use when needing ClinVar variant data), but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct health data domain: genetics, grants, protein expression, and WHO indicators. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow the 'get_<domain>' pattern with consistent snake_case verb_noun structure.
4 tools is well-scoped for a health data server, covering major areas without being overwhelming.
Tools cover genetics, grants, expression, and WHO data, but missing clinical trials or disease-specific databases. Minor gap.