List genomes in a MGnify catalogue by supplying its catalogue ID (e.g., 'human-gut-v2-0-2'). Returns paginated genome entries for the specified catalogue.
List genomes inside a catalogue. Provide catalogue_id (e.g. 'human-gut-v2-0-2'); v2 only exposes genomes scoped to a catalogue.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only listing operation, but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or error handling. The absence of side-effect statements is acceptable for a list operation, but details are not explicitly stated.
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 concise—one sentence plus an example—and front-loads the primary action and required parameter. It avoids unnecessary details and is 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?
For a simple list operation, the description provides sufficient context: it names the resource, the required filter, and the v2 limitation. It does not describe return structure, but the listing nature and schema-provided page/size parameters make the operation understandable. Minor gap: no mention of what data is returned per item.
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?
The schema describes all three parameters (catalogue_id, page, size) with examples and constraints, achieving high coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning—only reinforcing the catalogue_id example and v2 scoping, which are already present in the schema. Baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
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 states a clear action ('List genomes') and a clear resource ('inside a catalogue'). It also notes that v2 only exposes genomes scoped to a catalogue, which clarifies the tool's specific purpose and distinguishes it from sibling list tools.
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?
The description explicitly instructs to provide catalogue_id, includes a concrete example ('human-gut-v2-0-2'), and explains the v2 scoping requirement. It does not explicitly mention when to use this vs. alternatives, but the catalogue scope is implied by the instruction and example.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.