Get protein/gene expression data from the Human Protein Atlas. Returns tissue-specific and brain-regional RNA expression levels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gene | No | Gene symbol (default: BRCA1) | BRCA1 |
| type | No | expression (normal tissues) or cancer (cancer RNA) | expression |
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 provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the return type (tissue-specific and brain-regional RNA expression) but does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. Adequate but minimal.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words. Every part earns its place.
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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description is adequate but could be improved by briefly indicating the output format (e.g., list of values, single value). It covers the basic use case but lacks depth.
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 100%, so the schema already documents the two parameters. The description adds marginal context by stating the nature of returned data (tissue-specific and brain-regional), but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning.
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 clearly states it retrieves protein/gene expression data from the Human Protein Atlas, specifying tissue-specific and brain-regional RNA expression. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_genetic_variants.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied for expression data retrieval, but there is no mention of when not to use it or alternative tools for different types of queries.
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.