BioPython MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_pubmed

Retrieve scientific articles from PubMed using a search query, with options to specify maximum results and email for NCBI compliance.

Instructions

Search PubMed for scientific articles.

Args: query: Search query string max_results: Maximum number of results to return (default: 10) email: Email address for Entrez (required by NCBI)

Returns: Dictionary containing search results with PMIDs and article information

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_pubmed"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`query`	Yes
`max_results`	No
`email`	No	user@example.com

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.8Feb 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It mentions the email requirement and the return format (dict with PMIDs and article info), but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or pagination. It partially covers behavioral aspects.

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?

The description is well-structured with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. However, it repeats default values already in the schema, slightly reducing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While an output schema exists (not shown), the description only vaguely describes the return value as a dictionary. Given the complexity of searching PubMed, more details on result structure, pagination, or limits are needed for completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It explains that email is required by NCBI, but otherwise repeats default values already present in the schema. This is insufficient to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

The description clearly states the tool searches PubMed for scientific articles. It uses a specific verb and resource. However, among siblings there is also 'pubmed_search', which could cause confusion, and the description does not differentiate from that sibling.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pubmed_search' or 'pubmed_fetch'. The description only explains what the tool does, not the context of its use.

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