pubmed-mcp-server

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds critical behavioral constraints not in annotations: the 'open-access articles' limitation and the 'auto-resolved via ELink' mechanism. It also previews return content structure (body text, sections, references).

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?

Three sentences efficiently front-loaded with action (Fetch), scope (open-access), and input handling. No redundancy with schema or annotations; every sentence adds distinct value regarding capabilities and constraints.

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?

Given 5 well-documented parameters (100% schema coverage), existing output schema, and annotations, the description is complete. It covers the essential value proposition (full text retrieval), critical limitations (open access only), and input flexibility without needing to replicate parameter-level details.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the ID resolution semantics ('auto-resolved via ELink') for the pmids parameter and clarifying the mutual exclusivity logic between pmcids and pmids through 'Accepts... OR...' phrasing.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Fetch[es] full-text articles from PubMed Central (PMC)' and distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it 'Returns complete article body text, sections, and references' versus likely metadata-only alternatives like pubmed_fetch_articles.

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?

Provides clear usage context by limiting scope to 'open-access articles' and explaining dual ID input support (PMC IDs directly or PubMed IDs auto-resolved). However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., pubmed_fetch_articles) to contrast when full text is not needed.

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