kegg-mcp-server

get_disease_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch detailed information for a KEGG disease entry, choosing a compact summary or complete flat-file parse for disease research and pathway analysis.

Instructions

Get detailed information for a KEGG disease entry.

Args: disease_id: KEGG disease ID (e.g. 'H00004' for colorectal cancer). detail_level: 'summary' (default, compact) or 'full' (complete flat-file parse).

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": {
      "disease_id": "<disease_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_disease_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`disease_id`	Yes
`detail_level`	No		summary

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.5.0Oct 23, 2026

addedOutput schema / $defs / EntrySummary / properties / symbol

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Symbol"
+}

removedOutput schema / $defs / ErrorResult

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Structured error returned by a tool when the KEGG API fails.\n\nA tool returns this instead of raising so the model can reason about\nthe failure and decide whether to retry, change inputs, or give up.\nA point lookup that receives a 404 uses code ``not_found``; an empty search\nremains a successful result with no items.",
-  "properties": {
-    "code": {
-      "default": "kegg_api_error",
-      "title": "Code",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "error": {
-      "title": "Error",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "hint": {
-      "anyOf": [
-        {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "null"
-        }
-      ],
-      "default": null,
-      "title": "Hint"
-    },
-    "path": {
-      "anyOf": [
-        {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "null"
-        }
-      ],
-      "default": null,
-      "title": "Path"
-    },
-    "retryable": {
-      "default": false,
-      "title": "Retryable",
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "status": {
-      "anyOf": [
-        {
-          "type": "integer"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "null"
-        }
-      ],
-      "default": null,
-      "title": "Status"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "error"
-  ],
-  "title": "ErrorResult",
-  "type": "object"
-}

addedOutput schema / $defs / Reference / properties / sequence

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Sequence"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / result / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "$ref": "#/$defs/DiseaseInfo"
-  },
-  {
-    "$ref": "#/$defs/EntrySummary"
-  },
-  {
-    "$ref": "#/$defs/ErrorResult"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "$ref": "#/$defs/DiseaseInfo"
+  },
+  {
+    "$ref": "#/$defs/EntrySummary"
+  }
+]

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by explaining that 'summary' is compact and 'full' is a complete flat-file parse, but says nothing about failure modes for invalid IDs, entry not found, or the size cost of 'full'.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Short, front-loaded, and the Args block cleanly separates per-parameter facts. The example value is the only mildly redundant element, but it earns its place given the 0% schema coverage.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and both parameters are documented. The only remaining gap is the absent relationship to search_diseases, which would help an agent place this tool in a workflow.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: it names the disease_id format with a concrete example ('H00004' for colorectal cancer) and explains what each detail_level value actually means, going beyond the bare enum labels.

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 a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('KEGG disease entry'), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_diseases or say this is the fetch-after-search step, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied – the presence of search_diseases as a sibling and the required disease_id suggest a search-then-fetch flow, but the description never says when to use this versus searching, nor what happens if the ID is unknown. The detail_level tradeoff is described, which is the only explicit guidance.

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