Retrieves help for any PyMOL command or general usage guidance. Use it to quickly look up command syntax and options while exploring protein structures with MCPymol.
Shows help for a command
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | No | PyMOL command to describe. Omit for general help. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.1Input schema / properties / command / descriptionAdded value: +"PyMOL command to describe. Omit for general help."v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond a restatement of purpose — no note on what the help text covers (command syntax, argument lists) or how verbose the output is, even though an output schema exists.
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 zero filler, appropriate for a low-complexity lookup tool. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than crisp completeness.
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?
The tool is simple, has one optional parameter fully documented, and an output schema, so the burden on the description is light. Still, the description could cheaply add what kind of help is returned and when to reach for it instead of execute_pymol_command, which it omits.
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%, and the parameter already documents 'PyMOL command to describe. Omit for general help.' The description says 'for a command' but does not reinforce or extend the optional/omitted behavior, so baseline 3 applies.
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 verb and object ('Shows help for a command'), so the intent is legible, but it largely restates the tool name 'help' with no further specificity. It does not differentiate from possible alternatives such as execute_pymol_command for agents unfamiliar with PyMOL help semantics.
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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical workflow. The only scoping hint ('Omit for general help') lives in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.