amr-mcp

get_pubmed_references

Read-only

Fetches PubMed article metadata (title, journal, date, authors, DOI) for up to 50 PMIDs to support citation lookup and reference verification.

Instructions

Title, journal, date, authors and DOI for PubMed articles.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pmids": "<pmids>"
    },
    "name": "get_pubmed_references"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pmids`	Yes	PubMed IDs, e.g. from a catalog entry's pubmed_reference

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.3Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world operation. The description usefully identifies the returned metadata fields, but it does not disclose behavior for invalid or missing PMIDs, partial results, or the batching limit.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single compact fragment with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded around the returned information, though it could be slightly clearer as a complete sentence.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple, one parameter is fully documented, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists. However, the description remains minimal and does not cover operational edge cases such as invalid IDs or partial matches.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the pmids parameter is documented with its expected source. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the resource and the fields returned: title, journal, date, authors, and DOI for PubMed articles. Combined with the tool name get_pubmed_references, the purpose is clear, though the description itself is a noun phrase rather than a full verb-resource statement.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no named alternatives. The schema implies that PMIDs are required, but the description does not explain selection criteria versus any sibling tool.

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

Deploy Server