Lists labelable anatomical structures, searches names or synonyms, and filters by body region or system to support labeled CT image creation.
List labelable structures. query resolves a name/synonym or substring-searches; filter by
region (abdomen, thorax, neck, pelvis, head, spine, upper_limb, lower_limb) or system.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| system | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that `query` has dual behavior (exact name/synonym resolution versus substring search), which is non-obvious, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or what fields a returned structure carries — significant gaps for a zero-annotation tool.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler, and the query behavior is front-loaded before the filters. The trailing 'or system' is slightly elliptical — it reads as an afterthought and leaves the parameter under-described rather than saving space.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum sketch what a structure record looks like (identifier, canonical name, region, system) so an agent can chain into labeling tools. It covers inputs adequately but leaves the output side entirely unspecified.
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 compensate and largely does: it explains `query`'s two resolution modes and enumerates all eight valid `region` values that the schema does not constrain via enum. The `system` parameter is only named, with no values or semantics given, which is the one real gap.
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 and resource: list labelable structures. The word 'labelable' scopes the result set and implicitly separates it from siblings like list_findings, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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 only implied — an agent can guess this is the lookup step before labeling (labeled_image, batch_labeled_images), but the description never says when to call this versus find_findings or list_findings, nor whether filters are combinable or exclusive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.