Skip to main content
Glama

Metis — Check For Newer Evidence

check_for_newer_evidence

Reports how old your corpus evidence is on a topic and optionally searches PubMed and OpenAlex for newer published work, returning candidate sources with years and DOIs.

Instructions

How old is the corpus on this topic, and what has been published since?

The second half of fact-checking a quantity. A spread computed from a library
whose newest paper on the topic is from 2014 is a 2014 answer — possibly
correct, possibly superseded, and the corpus cannot tell you which because it
does not know what it lacks.

Recency is computed LOCALLY first and reported whether or not you go online,
because knowing how stale you are is what decides whether the search is worth
making. Set `search_online=True` to query PubMed and OpenAlex for work newer
than the corpus — metadata only, nothing of the researcher's is transmitted.

Anything returned from a search is ATTRIBUTED, not quoted: a title and a DOI
that nobody has read. Never present it beside a corpus passage as if the two
were the same kind of evidence, and use `verify_doi` before citing one.

Args:
    question: The question, e.g. "specificity of CATT in passive screening".
    search_online: Query PubMed + OpenAlex for newer work. Ask first.
    limit: Maximum results per source (default 8).

Returns:
    The corpus date range for this topic and, if requested, newer candidate
    sources with their years and DOIs.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
questionYes
search_onlineNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it explains local computation, optional PubMed/OpenAlex querying, metadata-only transmission, and that returned search results are attributed rather than quoted. It also warns not to present search results as equivalent to corpus evidence.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is front-loaded with the core question and then structured into behavior, args, and returns. It is generally efficient, though the staleness illustration is slightly verbose and could be tightened.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of annotations, the presence of an output schema, and only three parameters, the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly. It covers purpose, optional online behavior, parameter meanings, privacy constraints, and citation caveats.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: `question` is illustrated with an example, `search_online` explains exactly what remote sources are queried, and `limit` is described as a per-source maximum with its default.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: checking how old the topic corpus is and optionally finding newer publications. It distinguishes the local recency check from the online search and from downstream citation verification via `verify_doi`.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear usage context: recency is computed locally first, and `search_online=True` is an optional escalation that should be asked about first. It also names `verify_doi` as the required follow-up before citing online results, though it does not explicitly list when not to use the tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools