cdisc-library-mcp-server

bc.packages.getConcept

Retrieve a Biomedical Concept from a specified package by providing the package name and concept ID.

Instructions

Get BC within a package.

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": {
      "package": "<package>",
      "conceptId": "<conceptId>"
    },
    "name": "bc.packages.getConcept"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`package`	Yes
`conceptId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a generic retrieval action, omitting details on side effects, authorization needs, or return format. This is insufficient for safe and accurate use.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short but underspecified. It fails to earn its place by omitting critical information, making it more of a placeholder than a useful explanation.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description should at least explain the parameters and return value. It does not, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not clarify what 'package' and 'conceptId' represent or their expected formats. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Get BC within a package' specifies a verb and resource, but 'BC' is ambiguous and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'bc.packages.listConcepts'. The purpose is somewhat clear but lacks specificity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bc.packages.listConcepts). There is no mention of prerequisites or context for usage.

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