Check which thermophysical properties, prediction methods, and scientific limits this curation server supports before validating molecules, normalizing records, or triaging thermodynamic data.
Describe supported properties, methods, and important scientific limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names the categories of information returned (properties, methods, limits), which is meaningful for a zero-parameter introspection tool, but says nothing about whether results are static, cached, or versioned.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple introspection call, though 'important' is a mildly subjective qualifier that adds no operational detail.
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return values, and with zero input parameters the surface is small. The description covers purpose and scope adequately, leaving only the when-to-call guidance as a gap.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameters.
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?
States a specific verb ('Describe') and enumerates the resource: supported properties, methods, and scientific limits. This distinguishes it from the prediction/inspection siblings, which all act on molecules or records rather than describing server-side capability. It is clear but somewhat generic in phrasing.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of calling it before the predict/estimate/inspect siblings, and no exclusions. The intended 'discovery first' usage is only inferable from the name and the nature of a capabilities endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.