Retrieve one-hop upstream or downstream regulatory neighbors for a biological entity, preserving direction and source details; resolve unknown IDs by name first.
查询一跳上游/下游，保留方向、来源和截断；陌生纯 ID 需先用名称解析。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| symbol | No | ||
| dataset | Yes | ||
| refresh | No | ||
| species | Yes | ||
| direction | No | both | |
| entity_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| coverage | Yes | ||
| warnings | No | ||
| provenance | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by noting that results preserve direction, source/provenance, and truncation; it does not describe pagination behavior, though limit/offset exist in the schema.
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 compact sentence with the core scope and the ID-resolution caveat front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.
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?
Output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, so the description need not explain response format. However, for an 8-parameter interface with no schema descriptions, it leaves important invocation details like dataset choice, refresh behavior, and pagination unexplained.
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 must compensate for 8 undocumented parameters. It only alludes to direction, raw IDs, and truncation; species, dataset, symbol, entity_id, refresh, limit, and offset are left to bare schema fields.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: querying one-hop upstream/downstream neighbors, with directional scope called out. It implies a narrower scope than broader subnetwork or interaction-search siblings, though it does not explicitly name them.
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?
Gives a clear prerequisite: unfamiliar raw IDs must first be resolved by name, which effectively routes the agent to resolve_entities. It does not explicitly state when to prefer extract_subnetwork or search_interactions instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.