Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
med-lit-mcp

med-lit-mcp

by junhewk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

bot_start

Destructive

Start a scheduled bot run for a specified project, locking it and searching its look-back window for new articles.

Instructions

Begin a scheduled bot run: lock the project and search its look-back window for new articles.

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_start"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectYesThe bot project named in the job's prompt

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which already flag this as a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write), the description discloses two non-obvious side effects: the project gets locked and a look-back window is scanned. It does not say what unlocks the project or what happens on failure, but the lock disclosure is genuinely additive.

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 sentence with the main verb first and the two effects after the colon; no filler, nothing repeated from the name or schema.

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

Completeness3/5

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 no explanation, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. However, for a stateful lifecycle tool named alongside bot_next and bot_finish, the description never places it in that sequence or explains the locked-state consequence, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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 and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, so the schema carries the semantics. 'lock the project' restates the target but adds no format, identity, or constraint detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Begin a ... bot run') and adds two concrete actions (lock the project, search its look-back window), so the agent knows what happens on invocation. It does not differentiate itself from the closely related siblings bot_next and bot_finish, which matters in a bot lifecycle.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The phrase 'scheduled bot run' hints at context but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. project must be open), and no mention of how this relates to bot_next, bot_finish, start_search, or resume_search.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools