PubMed

Pubmed Search

pubmed_search

Search PubMed for biomedical articles using keywords or advanced queries. Filter by year, free full text, or abstracts, and sort results by relevance or date.

Instructions

Search PubMed for biomedical articles.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sort`	No	'relevance', 'date', or 'pub_date'.	relevance
`query`	Yes	Search query using PubMed syntax (e.g., 'CRISPR gene editing', 'smith j[Author] AND cancer', 'diabetes AND clinical trial[ptyp]').
`max_year`	No	Filter by maximum publication year.
`min_year`	No	Filter by minimum publication year.
`max_results`	No	Maximum results to return (1-100).
`only_free_fulltext`	No	Only free full-text articles.
`only_with_abstract`	No	Only articles with abstracts.

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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 only states the operation and does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, result format, or an explicit read-only safety profile.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single sentence is front-loaded and concise, but it is undersized for a seven-parameter search tool in a crowded sibling suite. It omits routing and scope details that would earn their place without adding fluff.

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

Completeness2/5

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 described, and the schema already documents parameters. However, with many sibling search tools, the description lacks the selection context needed to choose native PubMed search over EuropePMC, Semantic Scholar, or citation search, making it incomplete for agent routing.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline of 3 when structured data does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb 'Search' and the resource 'PubMed for biomedical articles', which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling search tools such as pubmed_europepmc_search, pubmed_semantic_scholar, or pubmed_citation_search, nor does it define scope beyond PubMed.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling PubMed/search tools. Prerequisites, exclusions, and alternative-selection conditions are absent.

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

Deploy Server