pubmed-mcp-server

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

Annotations indicate read-only and open-world behavior (external data dependency). The description adds value by clarifying the three specific relationship algorithms available, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, result ordering logic, or how 'similar content' is determined.

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?

Extremely efficient single-sentence structure. The em-dash construction front-loads the primary action and concisely lists the three operational modes without redundancy. Every word serves a specific purpose.

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 the presence of an output schema, comprehensive input schema coverage, and annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's essential purpose and capabilities. It appropriately relies on structured fields for parameter details and return values.

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 description coverage, the schema fully documents all three parameters including the enum values. The description mirrors the relationship types already defined in the schema but doesn't add additional semantic guidance (e.g., suggesting when to use 'cited_by' versus 'similar'). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the core action (Find articles) and resource (related articles), specifying three distinct relationship types (similar content, citing articles, references). It implicitly distinguishes from keyword search by referencing a 'source article,' though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like pubmed_search_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?

The description enumerates the three relationship modes available, which provides implied usage context, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., pubmed_search_articles for keyword searches) or prerequisites (needing a valid PMID).

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