Retrieve detailed gene information by NCBI Gene ID, including symbol, name, summary, and location for research analysis.
Get detailed information about a gene by NCBI Gene ID.
Args: gene_id: NCBI Gene ID (from search results or known)
Returns: JSON with gene details including symbol, name, summary, location
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gene_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / gene_id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "integer"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / gene_id / maxLengthAdded value: +20Input schema / properties / gene_id / minLengthAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / gene_id / patternAdded value: +"^[1-9][0-9]{0,19}$"Input schema / properties / gene_id / typeAdded value: +"string"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "get_gene_detailsOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.5.16Does 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 covered without the text. The description adds the return shape (symbol, name, summary, location), but says nothing about behavior for invalid/unknown gene IDs, rate limits, or external NCBI dependency despite openWorldHint=true.
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?
Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by Args and Returns sections; every line earns its place with no filler or repetition of the schema.
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?
With no output schema, the Returns block usefully enumerates the JSON fields an agent can expect. Minor gap: no mention of error/missing-gene behavior, which matters for a single-required-param lookup tool.
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 schema only conveys the type and a regex pattern, not meaning. The description compensates by defining gene_id as an NCBI Gene ID and indicating where to obtain it, which is more than the schema provides.
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 ('Get detailed information') and resource ('a gene') keyed by NCBI Gene ID. It is clearly distinguishable from the search_gene sibling by the 'details vs search' distinction, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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 parenthetical '(from search results or known)' implies the ID comes from a prior search, which is a useful workflow hint. However, it does not state when to use this over search_gene or get_gene_literature, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.