Retrieve a gene's reviewed UniProt (Swiss-Prot) protein entry by symbol, including accession, name, length, and function; optionally specify NCBI taxonomy ID, defaulting to human.
Look up the reviewed (Swiss-Prot) UniProt entry for a gene: accession, protein name, length, function.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taxon_id | No | NCBI taxonomy ID; 9606 = human | |
| gene_symbol | Yes | Gene symbol of the protein, e.g. 'EGFR' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description nevertheless adds real behavioral context by restricting scope to reviewed Swiss-Prot entries, telling the agent non-curated TrEMBL records will not appear. It does not say what happens when a symbol is ambiguous or unmatched, which keeps it out of 5 territory.
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 front-loaded sentence that names the datasource, the input unit, and the returned fields, with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the reviewed-entry restriction. Remaining gaps are edge-case behavior (no-match handling, multi-entry gene symbols), which are minor for a tool this shape.
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 100%: taxon_id is documented with its default (9606 = human) and gene_symbol with an example ('EGFR'). The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (look up) plus a precisely scoped resource (the reviewed Swiss-Prot UniProt entry for a gene) and enumerates what comes back: accession, protein name, length, function. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like lookup_gene, search_pubmed, and get_abstracts.
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?
Usage is implied by the description (use it when you have a gene symbol and want its curated protein record), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as lookup_gene. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.