Find PDB entries and RNA chains linked to an Rfam accession or PDB ID, including matched regions, for RNA structure mapping.
This call returns all PDB entries and RNA chains that map to the specified Rfam accession, including the matched regions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accession | Yes | Rfam accession or PDB ID type: string title: Accession description: Rfam accession or PDB ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.10Does 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 usefully discloses the return content (PDB entries, RNA chains, matched regions), but adds no auth, rate-limit, or pagination context. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause describes the returned resource. Efficient, though it could spend a few words on input flexibility or usage.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming what is returned (PDB entries, RNA chains, matched regions). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to invoke it, though the Rfam-vs-PDB-ID input ambiguity is left unresolved.
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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description narrows the input to 'Rfam accession' while the schema explicitly allows 'Rfam accession or PDB ID', which is slightly less informative than the schema rather than adding meaning. Baseline 3 for full coverage.
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?
States a specific verb (returns) and resource (PDB entries and RNA chains mapped to a Rfam accession, including matched regions), which is far more informative than the name alone. It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not differentiate itself from the many sibling mapping/accession tools (maps_maps_acc, best_soubsu_acc, etc.).
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided. Given ~35 sibling tools that also key off accessions/IDs, an agent gets no help deciding when rfam_nucleic_maps is the right call versus maps_maps_acc or the unip_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.