Normalize species, sex, and life stage applicability parameters to standardize AOP data filtering and review.
Normalize applicability parameters (species, sex, life stage).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sex | No | ||
| species | No | ||
| life_stage | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sex | Yes | ||
| species | Yes | ||
| life_stage | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond a bare operation name — it does not explain what normalization does, how values are canonicalized, or any auth/rate-limit considerations.
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?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than purposeful concision.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a tool with three undocumented parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should explain what normalization means and when to use it. The current text is too thin to guide correct invocation.
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 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining parameters. It merely lists the three field names ('species, sex, life stage'), which are already visible in the schema titles, and provides no format, allowed values, defaults, or normalization examples.
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 clear verb ('Normalize') and resource ('applicability parameters'), and names the specific fields involved. It distinguishes itself from the many AOP/assay siblings by operating on applicability normalization rather than retrieval or review, though it does not explicitly reference alternatives.
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 on when to call this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist. The description implies it is a preprocessing step but never states that context directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.