Find dermatology medical concepts by searching names or descriptions. Returns matching SNOMED CT codes for conditions like melanoma, nevus, or mole.
Search for medical concepts by name or description. Returns matching SNOMED CT concepts for dermatology conditions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search term (e.g., 'melanoma', 'nevus', 'mole') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and non-exhaustiveness. The description adds that results are SNOMED CT concepts specifically for dermatology, and that search matches by name or description—useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.
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 with zero filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and every clause adds information. Ideal length for a tool with a single parameter.
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 one-parameter search tool, the description covers the return format (SNOMED CT concepts) and domain (dermatology). It lacks details on result limits or pagination, but given the openWorldHint and simplicity, this is a minor gap. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the description's high-level return type.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the query parameter is already well described with examples. The description adds the semantic detail that the search can match by both name and description, which is not present in the schema. This enriches the parameter understanding.
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 specific verb ('Search') and resource ('medical concepts'), and narrows the scope to SNOMED CT and dermatology. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_user_moles (personal data), map_snomed_to_icd10 (mapping), and lookup_medical_concept (exact lookup).
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 a free-text search use case but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as lookup_medical_concept (exact ID) or search_medical_info (broader scope). Given the abundance of sibling tools, explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over others would be valuable, but its basic purpose is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.