Search NIH research grants from the NIH Reporter database. Returns funded projects with award amounts, PIs, organizations, and abstracts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Search query (default: cancer) | cancer |
| year | No | Fiscal year (default: current year) | |
| limit | No | Number of results (max 25, default 10) | |
| institution | No | Filter by organization name |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Search' and 'Returns', but fails to disclose if the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or pagination behavior. Only a minimal behavioral sketch is given.
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 two efficient sentences with no wasted words. However, it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from return value details) without adding length.
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?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. Missing guidance on usage, behavioral context, and parameter details beyond schema. Considerable gaps remain for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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% (all 4 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as clarifying default behaviors or constraints like the max limit of 25.
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?
The description specifies the verb 'Search' and resource 'NIH research grants' from the 'NIH Reporter database', and lists return fields (award amounts, PIs, organizations, abstracts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_genetic_variants, which target different data sources.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use. For a search tool with clear siblings, explicit usage context is expected.
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.