med-lit-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

validate_question

Checks a drafted PICO/PCC search question against project settings, returns a question_id for start_search, and shows the result for researcher approval.

Instructions

Check a drafted PICO/PCC search question against the project's settings and return a question_id for start_search. Show the result, including settings, to the researcher and wait for approval. Rules: guide("question").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project`	No	Project name from list_projects; may be omitted when only one project exists
`sources`	No
`question`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.5Oct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / project

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Project name from list_projects; may be omitted when only one project exists",
+  "title": "Project"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / sources / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "items": {
-      "enum": [
-        "pubmed",
-        "pmc",
-        "openalex",
-        "semantic-scholar",
-        "europepmc"
-      ],
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "enum": [
+        "pubmed",
+        "pmc",
+        "openalex",
+        "semantic-scholar",
+        "scopus",
+        "europepmc"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

First observedv0.1.1Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-idempotent, non-read-only, open-world operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the result must be surfaced to the researcher and approval awaited before proceeding, and it hands back a question_id. It does not say what happens on a failed validation, but the human-in-the-loop gate is the key behavioral detail.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its output, then the approval requirement, then the guide pointer. Nothing is padded, though the 'Rules: guide("question")' fragment is a slightly awkward standalone tail.

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 not be explained, and the approval step is covered. Still, for a tool whose argument is a deeply nested research-question object at 33% schema coverage, the description leaves an agent without enough detail to build a valid call without first invoking guide("question").

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description adds nothing about the three top-level parameters (project, sources, question). The nested ResearchQuestion/Filters/Components structure is complex, and the only guidance given is a pointer to guide("question"), leaving the description unable to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Check a drafted PICO/PCC search question against the project's settings') and names the downstream consumer ('return a question_id for start_search'), which distinguishes it from the sibling start_search. It is clear, but the notion of 'check against settings' stays abstract about what is actually validated.

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 workflow constraint is stated ('Show the result, including settings, to the researcher and wait for approval'), and it points at guide("question") for rules. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative routing (e.g., when to skip straight to start_search), so usage is only implied.

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