genomics-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_sources

Read-only

List genomic data and reference sources, their availability, and supported operations. Filter by kind to identify archives, catalogs, or reference databases for search and retrieval.

Instructions

List data and reference sources, their state and supported operations.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`error`	No	Set when status is error.
`errors`	No	Per-source failures in partial results.
`limits`	No
`status`	Yes
`warnings`	No
`operation`	Yes
`provenance`	No
`truncation`	No
`source_status`	No
`schema_version`	No		1

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that it returns the state and supported operations of sources, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose any other behaviors like pagination or error conditions.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately short and front-loaded with the main action.

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 description is minimal. It does not explain the optional 'kind' parameter or any usage context. While the output schema exists, the description leaves gaps in understanding how to call the tool effectively, especially since there is no guidance on when to filter by kind.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The description does not mention the 'kind' parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameter's meaning and possible values, but it fails to do so. The agent is left to guess what 'kind' does.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'data and reference sources', and specifies that it returns their state and supported operations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_files and list_samples, which target different resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to filter by kind or how it relates to other listing tools. This leaves the agent to infer usage.

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