Retrieve HCP cortical or Harvard-Oxford subcortical ROI region indices for fMRI studies and in-memory benchmarks.
Retrieves Human Connectome Project (HCP) cortical or Harvard-Oxford subcortical ROI regions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| atlas_type | No | cortical_hcp |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieves', implying a read operation, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it has any side effects, or what the return format is. There is no mention of limitations, permissions, 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the main action. There is no unnecessary verbosity, and it conveys the core purpose efficiently. It could be slightly more informative without being overly long, but it is well-structured.
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?
Given the tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not specify the return format (e.g., region names, coordinates), whether the operation is read-only, or any prerequisites. For a tool with such sparse structured metadata, the description should provide more context to enable correct usage.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. However, it adds no information about the atlas_type parameter beyond what the schema already provides (enum values and default). The description does not explain what each atlas type represents or how the parameter affects the returned regions.
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?
The description states a specific action ('Retrieves') and a clear resource (HCP cortical or Harvard-Oxford subcortical ROI regions). It names the two atlas types, making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the siblings are unrelated, so no differentiation is needed.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for retrieving atlas regions, but there is no explicit context, such as when to choose cortical vs subcortical, or any mention of related tools or workflows. Siblings are unrelated, so no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.