AGR MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but does not cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get alleles/variants associated with a gene.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has no redundant words, and every part earns its place. This makes it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage guidelines, and output. Without annotations or an output schema, more context on what the tool returns would be beneficial, but it meets a basic threshold for such a simple 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?

The description does not add meaning beyond what the input schema provides. Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for 'gene_id' and 'limit' parameters. The description mentions 'alleles/variants associated with a gene,' which aligns with 'gene_id,' but offers no additional context on parameter usage or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get alleles/variants associated with a gene.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'alleles/variants associated with a gene,' making the action and target clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_alleles,' which might have overlapping functionality, so it falls short of a perfect 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'search_alleles' or 'get_gene_info,' nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage. This lack of guidance leaves the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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