PubMed Advanced MCP Server

fetch_full_article

Obtain complete article content by fetching abstracts from PubMed and full-text from PMC Open Access when permitted.

Instructions

Fetch complete article content.

For PubMed: Returns abstract and metadata (full text not available). For PMC: Returns full text if article is in PMC Open Access.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "fetch_full_article"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pmid`	No	PubMed ID (for abstracts)
`pmcid`	No	PMC ID (for full-text, e.g., "PMC7611378")
`format`	No	"abstract", "medline", or "xml"	xml

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that PubMed does not return full text and that PMC full text is contingent on Open Access status. This covers key behavioral constraints, though it does not detail format-specific behavior or error cases.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise and front-loaded with the main action, followed by necessary caveats. Two short sentences, no redundancy, every sentence provides essential information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the output schema exists and schema coverage is 100%, the description adequately covers the key decision points: which ID to use and what content to expect. It could mention relationship to siblings or error handling, but it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds semantic value by pairing PMID/PMCID with expected content types and the Open Access caveat. The format parameter is not elaborated beyond schema, but the description elevates the parameters' practical meaning.

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 clearly states the tool fetches article content, with specific differentiation between PubMed (abstract and metadata only) and PMC (full text if Open Access). This distinguishes it from siblings like fetch_article_summary and fetch_bioc_article.

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?

The description provides clear usage context by mapping PMID to PubMed (abstract) and PMCID to PMC (full text if OA). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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

Deploy Server