Allen Brain API MCP Server

get_ephys_features

Query electrophysiology features from the Allen Cell Types Database to analyze cell properties for neuroscience research.

Instructions

Retrieve electrophysiology features for all cells in the Allen Cell Types Database.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_ephys_features"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`numRows`	No	Maximum number of rows to return (default is 50).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, default behavior for numRows (though schema says default 50), error conditions, or whether it's read-only. A read-only hint or mention of rate limits would improve transparency.

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?

Single sentence is concise and clearly front-loaded with the action. However, it could benefit from a brief list of what features are included for better scannability.

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?

Despite only one parameter, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'electrophysiology features' entails, nor does it provide context on output structure. Without an output schema, more detail is needed to fully inform the agent.

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% (numRows with default). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Retrieve', resource 'electrophysiology features', and scope 'for all cells in the Allen Cell Types Database'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'download_cell_ephys_data' which focuses on downloading raw data.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 26 siblings, such as 'get_morphology_features' or 'download_cell_ephys_data', the description lacks any comparative context or conditions of use.

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