get_relationRetrieve a single mTOR pathway relation by ID to view its mechanism, boundary conditions, confidence level, and supporting or conflicting studies.
One pathway relation by ID (e.g. "RHEB-MTORC1"): mechanism, boundary conditions, confidence, supporting and conflicting 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 this a safe, idempotent, read-only, closed-world lookup, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the shape of the returned content, but says nothing about failure behavior (e.g. unknown ID), which is the main remaining behavioral gap.
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 resource and lookup key front-loaded and the returned fields trailing as a list. No filler, though its telegraphic fragment style slightly reduces readability.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the fields returned (mechanism, boundary conditions, confidence, supporting/conflicting studies). The only material omission is error/miss behavior for a bad ID.
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 carries the burden, and the inline example 'RHEB-MTORC1' communicates the expected ID format, which is more than the bare 'string' schema provides. It stops short of stating whether the ID is case-sensitive or how it is obtained.
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?
Names the specific resource ('one pathway relation') and the lookup key ('by ID'), and enumerates the returned fields (mechanism, boundary conditions, confidence, studies). It implicitly separates itself from the plural sibling find_relations, though it never states that distinction 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?
The ID example ('RHEB-MTORC1') implies you need a pre-known relation identifier, which hints at when to use it, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of find_relations as the discovery alternative for agents that lack an ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.