Convert a PubMed ID (PMID) to its corresponding PMCID via NCBI's elink API. Returns the PMCID if the article is open-access in PMC, otherwise an empty string.
通过 NCBI elink API 查询 PMID 对应的 PMCID。
Args:
pmid: PubMed ID（如 "42534757"）
Returns:
PMCID（如 "PMC7440785"）；若文章未在 PMC 开放获取则返回空字符串
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pmid | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the use of the NCBI elink API (implying network call) and specifies the return behavior for not-found cases (empty string). However, it does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a simple lookup tool, this is moderately transparent.
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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence function summary followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the format is easy to parse.
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 single-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the input, output, and the special case of empty return. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but those are not critical for this simple operation. The presence of an output schema (though not shown) may also cover return details.
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?
The schema for 'pmid' has no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the parameter as 'PubMed ID' and provides an example ('42534757'), fully adding meaning beyond the schema. This meets the high-bar requirement.
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 clearly states the tool's function: querying a PMCID for a given PMID via the NCBI elink API. It specifies the resource (PMCID), the input (PMID), and the API used. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the siblings are download tools, so the purpose is distinct enough.
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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes the function without stating conditions such as 'use when you need to convert a PMID to a PMCID' or when not to use other tools. Usage context is implied but not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.