BioLit MCP

search_pubmed

Read-onlyIdempotent

Query PubMed for biomedical literature; get matching PMIDs, titles, journals, years, and publication types (no abstracts) for citation-grounded review.

Instructions

Search PubMed. Returns PMIDs, titles, journals, years and publication types (no abstracts).

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_pubmed"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	Yes	PubMed query; supports PubMed syntax, e.g. 'semaglutide AND cardiovascular outcomes'
`min_year`	No	Only papers published in or after this year
`max_results`	No	Number of results (1-50)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the exact return fields and excluding abstracts, but it omits notable operational traits such as PubMed rate limits or result-count behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the return shape immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates return fields, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. Minor gaps remain around pagination/rate limits, but nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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%, so query, min_year, and max_results are fully documented in the schema (including the 1-50 bound and PubMed syntax example). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search PubMed') and clarifies the returned fields, including the negative constraint 'no abstracts', which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_abstracts. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the routing hint is only partial.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The '(no abstracts)' note implies a two-step workflow where get_abstracts follows, but the description never states when to use this tool versus the alternatives or any preconditions. Usage is only implied, not spelled out.

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

Deploy Server