Retrieve a list of non-overlapping PDB chains ranked by observed residue coverage for a UniProt accession to assess structural coverage.
Retrieve a list of non-overlapping PDB chains that cover the largest number of observed residues for a given UniProt accession.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uniprot_accession | Yes | UniProt accession. title: Uniprot Accession description: UniProt accession. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description contributes meaningful domain behavior — that chains must be non-overlapping and are chosen to maximize covered observed residues — which is the kind of algorithmic context annotations cannot carry. However, it says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what happens when no chains cover the accession, and the idempotentHint=false on a pure lookup is left unexplained.
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?
One sentence with zero filler, and the discriminating selection criterion (non-overlapping chains maximizing observed-residue coverage) is front-loaded rather than buried. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description conveys the essential selection semantics an agent needs to interpret the result set. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (empty results, ordering) and disambiguation from the near-duplicate sibling, which slightly holds it below a 5.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'uniprot_accession' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description only restates 'for a given UniProt accession' without adding format details (e.g. primary vs secondary accession handling). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 and resource ('Retrieve a list of non-overlapping PDB chains') plus the selection criterion (covering the largest number of observed residues) for a given UniProt accession. It is far more specific than a tautology, but it offers no differentiation from the near-identical sibling 'best_soubsu_acc_11b902cf', so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the text alone.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the other chain/structure retrieval siblings (e.g. chains_ent_chains_id_entity_id, best_soubsu_acc), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only says what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer its place among roughly thirty siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.