string_enrichment_image_urlRetrieves the STRING enrichment figure image URL for a set of proteins.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x_axis | No | ||
| species | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| identifiers | Yes | Required. Protein identifiers, separated by %0d. Example: SMO%0dTP53 | |
| color_palette | No | ||
| group_by_similarity | No | ||
| number_of_terms_shown | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool retrieves a URL, implying a read-only operation, but discloses no additional behavior such as whether the URL is temporary, rate limits, or failure modes. It adds no context beyond the basic action.
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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key action and object, making it easy to scan.
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?
For a simple URL retrieval tool, the description is adequate for basic purpose, but given 7 parameters and an output schema, it lacks guidance on parameter usage and selection among sibling tools. The output schema covers return values, but the description doesn't explain any prerequisites or typical use cases.
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?
The schema description coverage is only 14% at the property level, and the tool description does not compensate. It only mentions 'a set of proteins' without explaining how identifiers should be formatted, what species is required, or how optional parameters affect the output. The nested schema descriptions exist but are not surfaced, so the description adds minimal parameter insight.
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 uses 'Retrieves' as a specific verb and names the resource 'STRING enrichment figure image URL' for a set of proteins. It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like string_enrichment or string_ppi_enrichment, so it misses the top score.
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 description provides no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for obtaining the visualization URL rather than enrichment data, nor does it give context like 'use when you need the figure.' There is no exclusion or alternative mention.
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.
Several tool pairs have overlapping purposes: string_network_link and string_visual_network both return network URLs with nearly identical behavior, and string_all_interaction_partners vs string_interactions_query_set both query interactions, differing subtly in scope. The enrichment/annotation tools also share boundaries, making it difficult for agents to disambiguate without reading detailed descriptions.
All tools share the 'string_' prefix, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-first (create_file, resolve_proteins), some are noun-first (interactions_query_set, network_link), and some are bare nouns (enrichment, homology). This mixed convention reduces predictability.
At 17 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal range, but it covers a broad domain: interactions, networks, enrichment, annotation, homology, species resolution, and sequence search. The count is justified by the complexity of the STRING database.
The tool set covers core STRING workflows: querying interactions, constructing networks, computing enrichment, retrieving annotations, identifying homologs, mapping IDs, and exporting data. Minor gaps exist (e.g., direct edge-list tables and intricate interaction score details), but the overall surface is robust.