med-lit-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

next_triage_batch

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves untriaged medical literature titles with their review question and criteria, so you can score each 0-3 before screening.

Instructions

Get untriaged titles with the question and criteria, to score 0-3 before screening.

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": {
      "run_id": "<run_id>"
    },
    "name": "next_triage_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`run_id`	Yes	Run ID from start_search

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.1.10Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover safety: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds that it returns untriaged titles along with question and criteria for scoring, but omits batch size, pagination, or next-step behavior; the output schema covers return values.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is slightly terse about how the triage batch relates to the surrounding screening workflow.

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?

For a low-complexity, read-only, one-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description adequately states source and purpose. It leaves sibling differentiation implicit, which is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, and run_id is documented as 'Run ID from start_search'. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' and resource 'untriaged titles with the question and criteria'; identifies the triage stage and scoring range. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like next_screening_batch, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'to score 0-3 before screening' implies this is used during triage before screening decisions. However, it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives such as next_screening_batch or record_triage_scores.

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