Retrieve a specific genome catalogue from MGnify using its accession ID (e.g., 'human-gut-v2-0-2').
Get one genome catalogue by id (e.g. 'human-gut-v2-0-2', 'marine-v2-0').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description gives no information about side effects, read-only nature, or any behavioral expectations. With no annotations to cover this, the agent is left without any statement about whether this operation is safe, destructive, or otherwise.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence with no redundant words or information. It is highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks context about the expected response structure, typical usage scenarios, or how this tool relates to sibling tools (e.g., mgnify_list_genome_catalogues). Even though an output schema exists, the description does not prepare the agent on what to do with the result or when to prefer this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the description provides example values for the catalogue id, it does not explain the meaning, provenance, or how to obtain a valid id beyond what the schema already states. Given the schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Get', the resource 'genome catalogue', and the identification method 'by id' with concrete examples ('human-gut-v2-0-2', 'marine-v2-0'), making the purpose immediately unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 like mgnify_list_genome_catalogues, nor any conditions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. The description gives no explicit indication of when this tool is the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.