pubmed-mcp-server

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

With readOnlyHint already declared, the description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the underlying mechanism ('Uses NCBI ECitMatch') and matching characteristics ('deterministic matching'), helping the agent understand this is a precise lookup service rather than a fuzzy search.

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 with zero waste: purpose (sentence 1), usage context (sentence 2), and technical differentiator (sentence 3). Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 output schema and comprehensive input schema annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and mechanism. It could optionally note the batch limit (25 items) or key tracking feature, but remains complete for agent selection and invocation.

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?

While schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), the description adds value by enumerating the expected citation components ('journal, year, volume, page, author') in natural language, mapping conceptually to the schema fields (firstPage, authorName) and clarifying what constitutes a valid 'partial bibliographic citation'.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Look up PubMed IDs from partial bibliographic citations'), clearly defining the tool's function. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling search tools by specifying 'partial bibliographic citations' rather than query terms.

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 second sentence establishes clear usage context ('Useful when you have a reference... and need the PMID'). The third sentence provides comparative guidance ('more reliable than searching by citation fields'), implicitly distinguishing from pubmed_search_articles, though it could explicitly name the sibling for perfect clarity.

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