get_studyRetrieve the full record for a single mTOR study by Atlas ID, including abstract, findings, linked entities, relations, and open questions.
Full record for one study by Atlas ID (e.g. "SAB1994"): abstract excerpt, extracted findings, linked entities, the relations it supports or contradicts, related open questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sid | Yes | Atlas study ID, e.g. "SAB1994" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable disclosure the annotations lack: there is no output schema, and the enumeration of returned content (abstract excerpt, findings, linked entities, supporting/contradicting relations, open questions) tells the agent exactly what a call yields. It stops short of noting error behavior for an invalid ID.
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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource and key before a colon-delimited list of contents. Every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter read tool, the description compensates well for the absent output schema by listing the record's components. Minor gaps remain: no note on invalid-ID handling or whether relations are summarized or full, but nothing essential to invoking the tool is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented with an example, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates the key and repeats the same example, adding nothing new (no case-sensitivity or ID-format guidance). Baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb+resource ('Full record for one study'), identifies the lookup key ('by Atlas ID'), and enumerates the record's contents. It is clearly separable from siblings like search_studies (plural lookup) and get_entity/get_question (different resources).
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?
Requiring an 'Atlas ID' implies you must already have an identifier, which indirectly routes the agent to search_studies when it only has a topic. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.