AGR MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Supports species filtering' but fails to describe critical behaviors such as search algorithm (e.g., fuzzy matching), pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., list of gene objects). This is inadequate for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose and scope, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity of a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error handling, behavioral constraints, and how it differs from siblings. For a tool with 3 parameters and rich sibling context, this minimal description leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying species filtering is a feature, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what's in the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Search for genes') and scope ('across all Alliance of Genome Resources model organisms'), which distinguishes it from siblings like search_alleles or search_diseases. However, it doesn't specify the exact resource type beyond 'genes' or mention what information is returned, making it slightly less specific than a perfect 5.

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 mentions species filtering but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_gene_info or mine_search. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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