Search PubMed for articles with abstracts using [MeSH Terms] and other PubMed syntax. Filter results by publication year and limit to support focused literature research.
Search PubMed alone, with abstracts. Supports PubMed syntax such as [MeSH Terms].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| year_to | No | ||
| year_from | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that abstracts are included, which is useful scope information beyond annotations, but does not mention pagination, result format, or rate limits. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero wasted words. Appropriately sized for a simple search tool, though it could have used that space to document the year/limit parameters.
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?
Annotations cover the safety profile and an output schema exists, so the remaining burden is lighter. However, with 0% schema coverage on four parameters (limit, year_from, year_to undocumented), the description leaves clear gaps for an agent trying to call the tool correctly.
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 but largely does not — it explains the query syntax ('[MeSH Terms]') but says nothing about limit, year_from, or year_to. The syntax hint is the only real parameter value added, leaving three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.
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+resource ('Search PubMed') and scope ('alone, with abstracts'). Implies differentiation from siblings (search_literature, search_clinical_trials) via the word 'alone', but never names an alternative, so sibling routing is only hinted at rather than explicit.
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?
The phrase 'PubMed alone' implies this is the PubMed-specific search versus a broader literature search and sibling tools like search_literature or search_clinical_trials, but no explicit when/when-not or named alternative is given. Usage is only weakly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.