pubmed-mcp-server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by listing the supported citation formats, confirming the tool's scope. It does not add information about rate limits, batch size constraints (implied by maxItems: 50 in schema), or error handling for invalid PMIDs, but meets the baseline given the safety annotations.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence of 11 words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and every word earns its place by conveying the exact function and available formats without redundancy.

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 and comprehensive input schema coverage, the description does not need to elaborate on return values or parameter details. For a straightforward formatting utility with only two parameters, the description is sufficiently complete, though mentioning the prerequisite of obtaining PMIDs would improve it.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'styles' parameter by listing the specific format options (APA, MLA, etc.), but does not add semantic nuance beyond what the schema already provides regarding the PMID input requirements or default behaviors.

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 action ('Get formatted citations') and resource ('PubMed articles') and enumerates the specific output formats (APA, MLA, BibTeX, RIS). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'pubmed_lookup_citation', which could cause confusion in tool selection.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pubmed_lookup_citation' or 'pubmed_fetch_articles'. It also fails to mention that PMIDs must be obtained beforehand (likely via 'pubmed_search_articles'), which is critical context for successful invocation.

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