med-lit-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

record_triage_scores

Destructive

Records 0–3 title triage scores that determine which articles a literature-review session screens, linking each score to its run and revision for auditable screening decisions.

Instructions

Record the 0-3 title scores that decide which articles each session screens.

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>",
      "revision": "<revision>",
      "scores": "<scores>"
    },
    "name": "record_triage_scores"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`run_id`	Yes	Run ID from start_search
`scores`	Yes
`revision`	Yes	revision from next_triage_batch

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.3.0Oct 29, 2026

removedInput schema / $defs

Removed value: -{
-  "TriageScore": {
-    "additionalProperties": false,
-    "properties": {
-      "score": {
-        "description": "3 clearly meets the criteria, 2 probably, 1 related but probably not, 0 unrelated",
-        "maximum": 3,
-        "minimum": 0,
-        "title": "Score",
-        "type": "integer"
-      },
-      "uid": {
-        "title": "Uid",
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "uid",
-      "score"
-    ],
-    "title": "TriageScore",
-    "type": "object"
-  }
-}

removedInput schema / properties / scores / items / $ref
```
Removed value: -"#/$defs/TriageScore"
```
addedInput schema / properties / scores / items / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

addedInput schema / properties / scores / items / properties

Added value: +{
+  "score": {
+    "description": "3 clearly meets the criteria, 2 probably, 1 related but probably not, 0 unrelated",
+    "maximum": 3,
+    "minimum": 0,
+    "title": "Score",
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  "uid": {
+    "title": "Uid",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}

addedInput schema / properties / scores / items / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "uid",
+  "score"
+]
```
addedInput schema / properties / scores / items / title
```
Added value: +"TriageScore"
```
addedInput schema / properties / scores / items / type
```
Added value: +"object"
```

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 declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the useful downstream consequence that these scores gate which articles get screened, but says nothing about overwriting prior scores, re-submission behavior, or session scoping that the non-idempotent, destructive flags make relevant.

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 filler. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves no room for the operational context the tool arguably needs.

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 and the input schema covering parameter sourcing, the description needn't explain return values. It supplies the key conceptual context — that scores decide screening eligibility — which is adequate for a destructive write tool already flagged by annotations, though it could mention the next_triage_batch 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?

Schema coverage is 67% and the schema already documents run_id's source (start_search), revision's source (next_triage_batch), and the 0-3 score scale with per-value meaning. The description merely restates the 0-3 range, adding no new semantics for the scores array or its 500-item cap.

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 (record triage scores) and explains what the scores are for (0-3 title scores deciding which articles each session screens). It is distinguishable from record_screening_decisions and record_evaluation by the 'title scores' framing, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 usage point is only implicit: the schema notes 'revision from next_triage_batch', suggesting this is called after fetching a triage batch, but the description itself never says when to call it or what to do instead if scores already exist. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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