Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
amr-mcp

amr-mcp

by pabloestepaa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

catalog_info

Read-only

Reports the NCBI Reference Gene Catalog version and size currently in use, helping you confirm the catalog release and scale behind AMR gene queries.

Instructions

Version and size of the NCBI Reference Gene Catalog in use.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "catalog_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and an output schema exists, so the bar is low. The phrase 'in use' adds a small hint that this reflects the currently loaded catalog rather than a remote list, but nothing is said about whether it reflects local config versus a network lookup, refresh behavior, or any cost/latency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words and the resource is front-loaded, but it reads as a label rather than a complete statement, and the key information (version and size) could be framed as an explicit return description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter informational tool backed by an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers what is returned. It stops short of saying when an agent should call it, which is the only meaningful gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. It correctly adds no fabricated parameter discussion.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource (the NCBI Reference Gene Catalog) and the exact data returned (version and size), which clearly separates it from all siblings, none of which report catalog metadata. It is a noun phrase with no verb, so the retrieval action is only implied, but the scope is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no stated purpose for checking the catalog version (e.g., before interpreting AMR gene results). The agent must infer the use case entirely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools