Search publications from MGnify by title substring, publication year range, and sort order. Get paginated results with customizable page size.
Search publications. Filters: title (substring), published_after/published_before (year), order.
| 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 full burden of disclosing side effects or read-only behavior. The description does not state whether this operation is read-only, modifies data, or has any side effects. Since 'search' implies no modification, but this is not explicit, transparency is lacking.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It avoids any unnecessary detail or repetition, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an exemplary level of brevity.
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?
Given that the schema provides full descriptions for all parameters, the description does not need to repeat them. It covers the core functionality (search with filters) and is sufficient for a simple list operation. Missing details like pagination hints are already in the schema, so the description is contextually complete for its purpose.
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 description summarizes the filters (title substring, year bounds, order) but merely repeats information already present in the schema descriptions. It adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline is 3, and the description meets but does not exceed this.
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 tool's function as 'Search publications', naming the resource and action. It is concise and unambiguous, though it could benefit from stating what kind of publications are searched (e.g., from MGnify). Overall, the purpose is evident.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools such as mgnify_list_studies or mgnify_get_publication. There is no mention of scenarios where this filter-based search is preferable, leaving the agent to infer context. This is a significant omission.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.