Record an include or exclude decision and reason for a single article in a screening run, creating an auditable record for systematic medical literature reviews.
Record the researcher's own include/exclude decision and reason for one article.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | ||
| reason | Yes | ||
| run_id | Yes | Run ID from start_search | |
| decision | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, consistent with the implied write, so there is no contradiction. Beyond that, the description discloses nothing about whether a decision can be overwritten, idempotency on re-review, permission requirements, or the effect of recording a decision on downstream workflow state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence with the key noun (include/exclude decision) front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is wasted, though there is also nothing extra offered.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a fully-required four-parameter mutation tool with low schema coverage, the description is too thin: it omits the relationship to batch screening siblings, the consequence of the recorded decision, and any workflow prerequisites. The presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but not from the remaining gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low at 25% (only run_id is documented in the schema). The description names the decision and reason fields and implies the article via 'one article', partially compensating, but adds no detail on the include/exclude enum, reason length limits, or the uid reference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Record') and resource (an include/exclude decision plus reason for one article), so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling record_screening_decisions, which appears to cover the same conceptual space.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus next_screening_batch, record_screening_decisions, or set_screening_criteria, nor any stated precondition such as requiring an active search run. The agent must infer its place in the workflow from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.