Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BioCite-MCP

BioCite-MCP

by muslus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

search_literature

Query Europe PMC to retrieve real, peer-reviewed papers matching a biological search term.

Instructions

Query Europe PMC to retrieve real, peer-reviewed papers matching a biological query.

Args: query: Free-text search query (e.g., "DREB2A drought stress tomato") limit: Maximum number of results to return (1-25)

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_literature"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes
limitNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description only mentions retrieving 'real, peer-reviewed papers', but does not disclose other behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it is insufficient.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a compact 'Args' block. It front-loads the purpose and wastes no words. Every part earns its place.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately covers the source (Europe PMC), output type (real, peer-reviewed papers), and basic parameter behavior. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no mention of pagination or error handling), but overall it is sufficient for a simple search tool.

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?

The description includes a short 'Args' section that explains query as 'free-text search query' and limit as 'Maximum number of results to return (1-25)'. This adds basic meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage), but it lacks examples or elaboration on expected input formats.

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 it queries Europe PMC to retrieve real, peer-reviewed papers, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like audit_manuscript or check_duplicate_citations, which serve different purposes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or how to choose between this and e.g., find_related_papers.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools