med-lit-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

bot_next

Destructive

Advance a medical literature review bot run: get the next step (wait, triage, screen, fetch, wiki, finish) and the tools to call, repeating until done.

Instructions

Advance a bot run after bot_start: returns the next step (wait, triage, screen, fetch, wiki or finish) with a do naming the tools to call. Repeat until finish.

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_next"
  }
}

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

Behavior3/5

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

The word 'advance' plus 'repeat until finish' conveys that calls are progressive and stateful, aligning with idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true; this is useful loop semantics beyond the annotations. However, it never surfaces the destructive/non-readonly nature the annotations declare, and 'returns the next step' could mislead an agent into treating this as a pure read.

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?

Two dense sentences with the verb and sequencing front-loaded and zero filler; the step enumeration is compact and functional.

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-value detail needn't be restated, and the description covers the loop framing and termination condition. It could do more to flag the side-effecting nature of each advance, but it is largely complete for a driver tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'project' parameter is already documented as 'the bot project named in the job's prompt'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Advance a bot run'), names the sibling that precedes it (bot_start) and the terminal state (finish). Enumerating the possible step outcomes (wait, triage, screen, fetch, wiki, finish) lets an agent distinguish this state-machine driver from siblings like get_run_status or bot_finish.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly sequences the call: invoke after bot_start and repeat until finish. This is strong when-to-use guidance within a loop, though it does not state when-not to use it (e.g., versus get_run_status for pure inspection).

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