Retrieve recorded ABCDE feature measurements for a specific mole using its ID. Provides educational data only, not a diagnosis or risk level.
Return recorded ABCDE feature measurements for a mole. Educational only — not a diagnosis or risk level.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| moleId | Yes | The mole's unique identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Input schema / properties / moleId / maxLengthAdded value: +64Input schema / properties / moleId / patternAdded value: +"^[A-Za-z0-9_-]{1,64}$"v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the valuable context that data is 'recorded' and that output is for educational purposes only. Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. It does not describe return format or pagination, but that is less critical for a simple one-parameter getter.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and resource, and includes the critical educational caveat immediately. No filler or redundancy.
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 the single parameter and read-only nature, the description sufficiently frames what the tool returns and its limitations. A brief note on output format would be a minor improvement, but nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it.
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 fully documents moleId as 'The mole's unique identifier' with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter guidance, so it provides no value beyond the structured schema.
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 uses a clear verb ('Return') and specifies the resource ('recorded ABCDE feature measurements for a mole'). The 'not a diagnosis or risk level' caveat helps separate it from risk-focused siblings like get_user_risk_factors, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 implies when to use the tool—when recorded ABCDE measurements are needed—and adds a clear boundary with 'Educational only — not a diagnosis or risk level.' However, it does not explicitly reference sibling tools or contrast cases (e.g., when to use get_mole_changes instead).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.