pubmed_lookup_meshSearch and explore MeSH vocabulary by term or partial name to identify medical subject headings for indexing and biomedical literature research.
Search and explore MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) vocabulary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | MeSH term or partial name to search. | |
| max_results | No | Maximum 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 must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Search and explore' implies a read-only lookup, but the description does not explicitly state safety, idempotency, rate limits, or authentication needs. It also omits pagination behavior, which is relevant for a search tool with a max_results parameter.
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 zero wasted words. It states the verb and resource immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse.
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?
For a simple two-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is minimally viable but has clear gaps. It does not explain when to use this tool over siblings or disclose any behavioral traits, leaving the agent to infer read-only safety and usage context.
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 both parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline of 3 for high coverage.
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 ('Search and explore') and resource ('MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) vocabulary'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that search articles rather than the MeSH vocabulary. The word 'explore' is slightly vague, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pubmed_search or other PubMed siblings. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where MeSH lookup is preferred over direct article search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.