pubmed_fetchRetrieve detailed metadata for up to 50 PubMed articles by PMID, optionally including MeSH terms.
Fetch detailed article metadata by PubMed IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pmids | Yes | List of PubMed IDs (up to 50 per request). | |
| include_mesh | No | Include MeSH terms in results. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does 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 correctly signals a read-only fetch and the schema carries the 50-ID batch cap, but the description itself says nothing about rate limits, partial-result behavior, or what happens with invalid IDs.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that it omits routing context that would have earned its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the schema fully documents both inputs. For a simple lookup tool this is close to complete; only the sibling-routing context is absent.
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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the 50-ID limit and the include_mesh default. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (article metadata) and the keying input (PubMed IDs). It is clearly distinguishable from pubmed_search and pubmed_find_related, but it never names a sibling or scoping condition to make the boundary explicit.
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?
"By PubMed IDs" implies the tool is used once IDs are already known, which is a reasonable usage signal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus pubmed_search/pubmed_summary routing and no note on what to do when PMIDs are unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.