Retrieve full input schema, version, and resource requirements for any BioHarbor tool. Use it to check needed inputs and GPU resources before running a bioinformatics job.
Full input schema, version and resource needs of a BioHarbor tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It never states that this is a non-destructive read, that it takes no job/session state, or whether it fails for unknown tool names. It partially compensates by listing what is returned, but the output schema already covers that.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the returned content with zero filler. It errs only in being too sparse rather than too long.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the tool is a simple single-parameter read. Still, the meaning of the required 'name' argument and the when-to-use context are left entirely unaddressed, leaving the definition minimally viable.
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?
The single parameter is 'name' with 0% schema description coverage and no enum. The description does not clarify whether this is a tool name, job name, or resource name, nor the expected format or error behavior for unknown names. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names a specific action (describe/extract metadata) and enumerates exactly what is returned: full input schema, version, and resource needs of a BioHarbor tool. That is far more informative than the name alone. It doesn't, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any precondition such as 'call before invoking a tool to learn its arguments.' The use case (introspecting a tool before use) is only inferable from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.