pubmed-mcp-server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v2.10.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from searching to fetching to ID conversion to citation formatting. There is no overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent 'pubmed_verb_noun' pattern using lowercase and underscores, making it predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count5/5
10 tools is a well-scoped number for a biomedical literature server, covering searching, retrieval, ID management, and help features without excess.
Completeness4/5
Core operations are covered: search, fetch, convert IDs, citations, MeSH, and related articles. Minor gaps like batch operations are absent but not essential.
Average 4.5/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 3.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 5 of 5 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 70 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 26, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the return fields (abstract, authors, journal, MeSH terms). It does not disclose rate limits or error behavior, but given annotations, the added context is valuable.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, with no unnecessary words.
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?
The tool has an output schema (reducing need to explain return format), and the description lists key return fields. Parameter count is low, and annotations cover safety. The description is sufficient for a fetch tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description mentions MeSH terms, which relates to the includeMesh parameter, but does not add semantics beyond the schema's descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses specific verb 'fetch' and resource 'full article metadata', listing included fields (abstract, authors, journal, MeSH terms). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like pubmed_search_articles (search) and pubmed_fetch_fulltext (full text).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when you have PubMed IDs and want metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. No guidance on when-not-to-use is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds no additional behavioral context such as error handling or output structure, which is partly covered by output schema.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with action. Every sentence adds value.
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?
All parameters are well-documented in schema, output schema exists, and sibling tools provide context. No missing information for a formatting tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and description adds minimal clarification about format passing style. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'get' and the resource 'formatted citations for PubMed articles' with explicit supported formats. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on citation formatting.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on passing a single format as a string or multiple as an array. Lacks explicit comparison to alternatives but sibling list makes distinct purpose clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important behaviors beyond annotations: it returns 'PMIDs and optional brief summaries,' supports pagination via offset, and notes that PubMed caps results at 9999 records. It also explains that summary counts >50 should be handled by another tool. These details add significant context to the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations.
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 two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and then enumerating supported features concisely. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or irrelevant 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?
For a tool with 14 parameters, nested schemas, and an output schema, the description covers the main capabilities (query syntax, filters, date ranges, pagination, optional summaries). It also provides cross-tool guidance for large summaries. However, it does not mention that the query supports full NCBI syntax (though implied) or briefly describe the output format, but the output schema covers that. Still, it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with comprehensive parameter descriptions. The tool description summarizes the filter types but does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema already provides. Per guidelines, with high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Search PubMed with full query syntax, filters, and date ranges' and specifies that it 'Returns PMIDs and optional brief summaries.' This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like pubmed_fetch_articles or pubmed_fetch_fulltext, which retrieve data for given IDs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives. It mentions pagination and the summaryCount cap (suggesting use of pubmed_fetch_articles for larger summaries), which provides some guidance, but no direct comparison to other tools or conditions for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns 'NCBI's suggested correction', providing behavioral context without contradiction. No further disclosure is needed for this simple operation.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two short, front-loaded sentences that convey the essential function and usage context without any wasted words.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present, annotations covering safety and openness), the description is complete. It provides enough information for an AI agent to correctly select and invoke the tool, especially alongside the structured fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the single 'query' parameter as 'PubMed search query to spell-check'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'spell-check' and the resource 'query from NCBI', making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also mentions 'NCBI's suggested correction' and positions it as useful for refining search queries, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on searching or fetching articles.
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 phrase 'Useful for refining search queries' implies the tool should be used before conducting searches to correct spelling. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the context is sufficiently clear given the sibling search tools exist for actual retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds constraints beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by specifying the PMC-only limitation and batch size. It aligns with readOnlyHint as a safe conversion operation. No contradictions.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides key constraints and alternatives.
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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, constraints, and alternatives. It does not detail errors or rate limits but is sufficient for a simple conversion tool with good annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters with examples. The description does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but it reinforces the single-type constraint and limit, earning a baseline score.
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 converts between article identifiers (DOI, PMID, PMCID). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it only works for articles indexed in PubMed Central and directs users to pubmed_search_articles for non-PMC articles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage conditions: accepts up to 50 IDs of a single type per request, and resolves only PMC articles. It also tells when not to use this tool and suggests an alternative (pubmed_search_articles).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds behavioral traits beyond annotations: describes abstract truncation (abstractSnippet and abstractTruncated), mentions that full abstract can be fetched with pubmed_europepmc_fetch, and notes that P_PDATE_D is ignored for preprint-only results. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two dense paragraphs with no wasted sentences. Front-loaded with purpose and coverage, then details on sources, pagination, and abstracts. Every sentence contributes meaning.
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 complexity (6 parameters, pagination, result types, sibling tools), the description covers key aspects: search scope, source selection, pagination, abstract truncation, and reference to fetch tool. Output schema existence compensates for lack of return value detail.
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%, but the description adds value by explaining defaults (sources, pageSize, cursorMark), example sort values, and query syntax. It clarifies which parameters to use for pagination and source filtering, enhancing the schema descriptions.
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 'Search Europe PMC' with specific verb and resource, lists covered sources (MED, PMC, PPR, PAT, AGR), and distinguishes from sibling tools like pubmed_search_articles (PubMed-only) and pubmed_europepmc_fetch (fetch full abstract).
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?
Explicitly says 'Use when additional coverage is needed — preprints and EPMC-only OA records are the typical recovery.' It explains defaults, pagination via cursorMark, and how to include additional sources. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use, the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by detailing what is returned (descriptor records with specific fields) and pagination via offset. No contradictions; it complements the annotations well.
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 brief (two sentences) yet comprehensive. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides key details about returns and pagination. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.
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 annotations, full schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, what it returns, and how pagination works. It is complete for a lookup tool with these structured supports.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant value beyond the parameter descriptions. It explains that offset is for pagination and that the exact-descriptor match is pinned to the first page. It also specifies what includeDetails controls (scope notes, tree numbers, entry terms). This enriches understanding.
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's purpose: searching and exploring the MeSH controlled vocabulary. It specifies the resource (MeSH), the verb (search/explore), and the return type (descriptor records with tree numbers, scope notes, entry terms). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pubmed_search_articles which search articles, not vocabulary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool. It implies usage for MeSH term lookup, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. Given sibling tools like pubmed_search_articles, the context helps, but the description lacks direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context: primary source (NCBI ELink), fallbacks to Europe PMC and OpenAlex, and describes relationship semantics. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with action and resource, no wasted words. Every sentence provides essential information.
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 4 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose, relationships, fallback behavior, and pagination. No significant gaps.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about relationship types and pagination (offset description aligns with schema). The schema already documents parameters well, but the description adds marginal value.
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 it finds articles related to a source article, specifying three distinct relationship types (similar, cited_by, references). It differentiates from sibling tools by naming the relationship types and fallback sources.
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 explicitly states when to use it (find related articles) and lists the relationship types. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct alternatives, but sibling tools are listed and the description implicitly differentiates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, both consistent with the description. The description adds significant behavioral detail: fallback behavior, truncation modes (`truncate` vs `outline`), character budget interplay, and that references are excluded from budget. No contradictions.
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 description is well-structured with a clear overview sentence, then parameter details. It is slightly long (over 200 words) but every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Front-loads the core purpose and fallback behavior. Minor room for trimming, but highly functional.
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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, fallback logic, multiple output modes), the description is remarkably complete. It explains all major behaviors, constraints, and edge cases (e.g., preprints with PMC counterpart). Output schema exists (implied by 'structured JATS'), so no need to describe return values.
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 100% (baseline 3), but each parameter description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema—e.g., explaining resolution chains for DOIs, fallback context for pmids, and detailed behavior of `overflowMode` and `maxCharacters`. This greatly aids an agent in selecting and invoking the tool correctly.
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 starts with a specific verb ('Fetch full-text articles') and resource ('PMC with structured sections and references'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pubmed_fetch_articles (which likely returns metadata) and pubmed_europepmc_fetch (which focuses on Europe PMC).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states to provide exactly one of three ID types (`pmcids`, `pmids`, `dois`), explains the fallback chain when PMC misses (to Europe PMC, then Unpaywall), and notes when to use each input. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: deterministic citation matching, ECitMatch primary-key behavior (journal+volume+page), and explanation of failure conditions. No contradictions with readOnlyHint or openWorldHint.
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?
Two focused sentences: purpose first, then usage guidelines. No unnecessary words, earns its place.
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 output schema exists, description covers all necessary context: constraints, best practices, and comparison to alternatives. Complete for a batch citation lookup tool.
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 100% with descriptions; description adds extra context like 'more fields = better accuracy' and 'key auto-assigned if omitted', which enhances schema 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?
Description clearly states 'Look up PubMed IDs from partial bibliographic citations' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like pubmed_search_articles (free-text search) and pubmed_convert_ids (ID conversion).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use (structured references needing PMID) and contrasts with free-text search (more reliable for structured references). Also provides constraints: must include at least journal or year; author-only or volume-only guarantees no match.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: full abstract retrieval, handling of truncation, and support for non-PubMed records. No contradiction with readOnlyHint or openWorldHint.
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?
Each sentence serves a distinct role: purpose, linkage to search, sibling exclusion, limit. No fluff. Front-loaded with the core action.
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 tool's complexity (array parameter, output schema exists), the description covers retrieval path, truncation handling, source-specific quirks, and alternatives. Leaves no obvious gaps for the intended use case.
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 coverage is 100%, but description adds crucial nuance: instructs to copy epmcId from search results, explains source enum meanings (e.g., PMC returns canonical MED record with pmcId), and clarifies the need for both params. This goes beyond schema definitions.
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?
Clearly states the action (fetch records including full abstract) and the resource (Europe PMC records addressed by source and epmcId). Distinguishes from sibling tools like pubmed_europepmc_search and mentions specific record types (PPR, PAT, AGR).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly explains when to use this tool (after pubmed_europepmc_search returns truncated abstracts) and when not to (for records with PMID/DOI, use other tools). Provides batch limit of 25 records per call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![pubmed-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cyanheads/pubmed-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cyanheads/pubmed-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![pubmed-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cyanheads/pubmed-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cyanheads/pubmed-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/cyanheads/pubmed-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server