AGR MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, what the output format might be, or any constraints beyond the parameters, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what phenotype annotations entail, the format of results, or any behavioral traits like pagination or error handling. For a tool with two parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 doesn't add any meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for 'gene_id' and 'limit'. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as no additional semantic context is provided in the description.

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 'phenotype annotations for a gene', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_gene_diseases' or 'get_gene_expression', which also retrieve annotations for genes but for different data types, leaving room for confusion about what distinguishes this specific tool.

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. With siblings like 'get_gene_diseases' and 'get_gene_expression' that also fetch gene-related annotations, there's no indication of what makes phenotype annotations unique or when to choose this over other gene annotation tools, leaving usage unclear.

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