Retrieve a set of non-overlapping PDB chains that maximizes observed residue coverage for a given UniProt accession.
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.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by stating the selection criterion (largest number of observed residues) and that chains are non-overlapping, but says nothing about ordering, determinism (despite idempotentHint=false), or what happens when no structures exist.
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?
A single dense sentence with no filler, and the selection criterion is front-loaded within it. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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?
With one parameter, no output schema and read-only annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it conveys the input, the nature of the returned list and the optimization criterion. It falls short only on return shape details (per-chain coverage figures, ordering, empty-result behavior).
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?
Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats that the accession is the input but adds no format guidance (e.g. canonical accession vs isoform), so it does not improve on the 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 names a specific verb ('Retrieve'), resource ('list of non-overlapping PDB chains') and scope ('for a given UniProt accession'), which is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling ebi-pdbe-best_soubsu_acc_11b902cf, whose differing overlap policy is only implied by 'non-overlapping'.
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?
Usage is implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for picking representative structural coverage of a protein. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as the other 'best' variant or the unip_map/chains sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.