Europe PMC Literature Search MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the processing flow (PubMed elink+efetch, fallback to Europe PMC) and return structure, which adds behavioral context beyond basic function. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling specifics, or performance characteristics. The description adds some value but is incomplete for a tool with no 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 moderately concise with a clear purpose statement and numbered process steps. However, the process details are somewhat technical and could be simplified for an AI agent. It's front-loaded with the purpose, but the structure includes unnecessary implementation details that don't aid tool selection.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is partially complete. It explains the processing flow and return structure, which helps, but lacks parameter explanations and usage context. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but gaps in behavioral and parameter details remain.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'PMID' implicitly in the process but doesn't explain the three parameters (pmid, email, max_results) or their roles. The description adds no meaningful semantics beyond what the schema's property names suggest, failing to address 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取引用该文献的文献信息' (Get information about articles citing this literature). It specifies the resource (articles citing a given literature) and the action (get information), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_similar_articles' or 'get_references_by_doi'. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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. It mentions a fallback mechanism (PubMed to Europe PMC) but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons with siblings like 'search_europe_pmc' or 'get_similar_articles'. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool recommendations.

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