find_contradictionsIdentify contested mTOR relations and conflicting studies, showing evidence from both sides. Filter by entity to examine disputed pathway claims.
Relations the Atlas marks as contested or that carry conflicting studies, with both sides of the evidence. Optionally limited to one entity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| entity | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that results include both sides of the evidence, which is useful output-content context, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or what happens when no contested relations exist.
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 dense sentence with the contested-relations scope front-loaded and the optional filter appended. No filler, though the trailing 'Optionally limited to one entity' reads slightly tacked-on.
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 read-only discovery tool with no output schema the description conveys what is returned (relations plus both sides of evidence), which is the key missing piece. It remains incomplete on how to identify the entity argument and on the limit/pagination behavior.
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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It only loosely characterizes the `entity` parameter as an optional limiter and never states its format (ID vs name), and the `limit` parameter (default 20, max 50) is not mentioned at all.
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+resource: relations the Atlas marks as contested or that carry conflicting studies, plus the notable scope detail that both sides of the evidence are returned. It implicitly separates itself from find_relations by scoping to contested claims, though it never names the sibling explicitly.
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?
'Optionally limited to one entity' hints at when to narrow the query, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over find_relations or evidence_between, and no stated prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.