get_questionFetch an open or frontier mTOR research question by ID to inspect the gap, what changed, what remains open, testing options, and linked studies.
One open or frontier question by ID (e.g. "H1", "F2"): the gap, what changed, what is still open, how it could be tested, linked studies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, making the safety profile clear. The description adds useful content about what the question object contains, but doesn't describe authentication, error behavior, or rate limits.
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?
The description is a compact single sentence that front-loads the resource and ID examples, with no wasted words. It could be slightly more structured with a clear when-to-use phrase.
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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the content well. However, given 0% schema description coverage, it should specify the expected ID format or describe return behavior more completely.
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 sole 'id' parameter is completely undocumented. The description provides example IDs ('H1', 'F2') which add some semantics beyond the raw string type, but doesn't state format requirements or whether 'open' vs 'frontier' IDs differ.
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?
The description gives a specific verb+resource combination: retrieve 'One open or frontier question by ID', with example IDs, which clearly separates it from list_questions and search tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or clarify the open/frontier distinction beyond context.
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?
Usage context is implied by 'by ID' and the sibling tools list, but the description does not say when to use this versus list_questions or search_entities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.