PubMed

Pubmed Europepmc Search

pubmed_europepmc_search

Search Europe PMC for biomedical literature, including preprints, patents, and Agricola, to access broader sources than PubMed.

Instructions

Search Europe PMC — broader than PubMed: includes preprints, patents, Agricola.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sort`	No	'relevance', 'date', 'cited'.	relevance
`query`	Yes	Search query (same syntax as PubMed).
`sources`	No	Comma-separated source types: MED (PubMed), PMC (OA subset), PPR (preprints), PAT (patents), AGR (Agricola).	MED,PMC,PPR
`min_year`	No	Minimum publication year.
`max_results`	No	Maximum results (1-100).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the content coverage (preprints, patents, Agricola), which is a genuine behavioral trait, but omits auth requirements, rate limits, and pagination behavior for a 5-parameter search tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the scope expansion is stated immediately after the action. Nothing needs trimming.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and all params are schema-documented. However, with no annotations and no guidance on choosing between this and pubmed_search, the definition is adequate but thin for a multi-source search tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 every parameter including sources and sort semantics. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Europe PMC') and immediately differentiates scope from the PubMed siblings by noting it is 'broader than PubMed' with preprints, patents, and Agricola. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer for PubMed-only searches.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is only implied via 'broader than PubMed' — the agent can infer this tool is for extended coverage, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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

Deploy Server