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, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves expression data. It doesn't explain the return format, potential data structures, or how results are organized (e.g., pagination with the 'limit' parameter). For a data-fetching tool with two parameters, this leaves the agent underinformed about what to expect.

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%, with both parameters ('gene_id' and 'limit') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that expression data includes tissue/cell type and developmental stages, which relates to output rather than inputs. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding of parameters.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'expression data for a gene', specifying what data is retrieved (tissue/cell type expression and developmental stages). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_gene_info' or 'get_gene_diseases' by focusing on expression data, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more explicit about sibling differentiation.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools like 'search_genes' or 'get_gene_info', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone. This lack of explicit context reduces effectiveness in tool selection.

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