Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bsp-mcp

bsp-mcp

Official
by Biological-Sovereignty-Protocol
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

bsp_resolve_biomarker

Resolve any BSP biomarker code to its name, category, level, and clinical context from public taxonomy data without requiring user consent.

Instructions

Look up information about a specific BSP biomarker code — name, category, level, and clinical context. Public taxonomy data — no consent required.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "bsp_resolve_biomarker"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesBSP biomarker code (e.g. "BSP-GL-001", "BSP-LA-004", "BSP-HM-001").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It disloses the read-only nature ('Look up information'), the public access level, and the lack of consent requirement. It does not mention edge cases like unknown codes, but for a simple lookup this is adequate.

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?

One concise sentence with the core action and return fields front-loaded, plus a short clause about access policy. No wasted words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single-parameter, read-only taxonomy lookup with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, what it returns, and that no consent is needed. The agent can invoke it correctly without further ambiguity.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with a description and an example format for the single 'code' parameter. The tool description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb 'Look up information' with a clear resource: a specific BSP biomarker code. It also names the fields returned (name, category, level, clinical context), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list categories or manage records.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description makes clear this is for resolving a single biomarker code and explicitly notes 'public taxonomy data — no consent required', which signals no consent precondition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with bsp_list_categories, but the usage context is evident.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools