Skip to main content
Glama
musharna

plant-genomics-mcp

by musharna

Literature (Europe PMC)

locus_literature
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Europe PMC for literature mentioning a plant locus. Returns title, authors, abstract, citation count, and auto-disambiguates for non-model species.

Instructions

Search Europe PMC for literature mentioning a plant locus. Free, no API key. Returns up to size results (default 10, capped at 25) with title, authors, journal, year, DOI, PMID, open-access status, citation count, and abstract. For non-Arabidopsis species the species common name is appended to the query to disambiguate locus IDs (rice, maize, ...). Pair with resolve_locus_to_uniprot or ensembl_plants_lookup_locus to ground the locus before fanning out to the literature.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sizeNoMax results (1–25, default 10)
locusYese.g. AT1G01010 (Arabidopsis), Os01g0100100 (rice)
organismNoPlant organism — accepts canonical slug (arabidopsis_thaliana), scientific or common name, or NCBI taxidarabidopsis_thaliana
include_abstractNoSet false to null out abstractText, which is ~67% of this payload. The response echoes 'abstracts_included' so a null abstract is not mistaken for an article that has none.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hitsYes
locusYes
queryYesFinal query string sent to Europe PMC
hitCountYesTotal hits available upstream (may exceed returned)
organismYes
returnedYesNumber of hits actually in hits[]
abstracts_includedNoFalse when include_abstract=False was passed, in which case every abstractText is null because it was not requested — not because the article lacks one. Abstracts are ~67% of this payload.
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes the free access, no API key requirement, result caps and defaults, return fields, and the disambiguation strategy for non-Arabidopsis species. All align with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. Every sentence provides unique value: purpose, constraints, return fields, disambiguation behavior, and usage pairing. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, output schema present), the description comprehensively covers purpose, behavior, parameter details, return fields, and usage context. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return structure, and the description fills the remaining gaps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description still adds meaning: it explains the cap on 'size', provides example inputs for 'locus' and 'organism', and clarifies the effect of 'include_abstract' (null out abstractText and reduce payload). This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'Europe PMC' for literature mentioning a plant locus. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying its unique function of literature search, as opposed to other locus-related tools like orthology or expression.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides guidance on when to use the tool, e.g., for searching literature given a locus, and suggests pairing with resolution tools. It explains how non-Arabidopsis queries are handled. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools, which are mostly non-literature.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/musharna/plant-genomics-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server