med-lit-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

bot_finish

DestructiveIdempotent

End a medical literature review bot run by refreshing the project wiki, writing the update report, and returning the reply message for that project.

Instructions

End a bot run: refresh the wiki, write the update report, and return the message to reply with.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "bot_finish"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project`	Yes	The bot project named in the job's prompt

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.1.5Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false; the description corroborates the write behavior by naming concrete side effects (wiki refresh, report write, reply message). It adds real behavioral value beyond the flags, though it omits that the destructive nature is a finalization step and what exactly is overwritten.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action first and then its effects; every clause earns its place with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still notes the reply message is produced. It covers the key side effects for a finalization tool, though it says nothing about state after finishing (e.g., whether the bot run can be resumed).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter ('project') and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail for the argument, matching the baseline for well-covered schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (end) plus resource (bot run) and enumerates the three concrete effects: refresh the wiki, write the update report, return the reply message. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling lifecycle tools bot_start and bot_next.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The name and 'End a bot run' framing imply when it applies, but there is no explicit statement of prerequisites, ordering relative to bot_start/bot_next, or conditions under which it should not be called.

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