View saved PubMed pipeline configurations, filtered by tag or scope, to review and reuse literature search workflows.
List all saved pipeline configurations.
Args: tag: Filter by tag (e.g., "sedation"). Empty = show all. scope: Filter by scope: "workspace", "global", or "" (show all).
Returns: Table of saved pipelines with name, scope, description, tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | ||
| scope | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / scope / enumAdded value: +[
+ "",
+ "workspace",
+ "global"
+]Input schema / properties / tag / maxLengthAdded value: +100Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "list_pipelinesOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.5.16Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, lowering the burden. The description adds useful behavioral context by describing the returned table fields (name, scope, description, tags) and clarifying that empty filter values show all results. Minor gaps like ordering or pagination are not covered.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses compact Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds information without redundancy, and the structure is easy to scan.
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 simple read-only list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description provides sufficient completeness by documenting filter semantics and the return table fields. Minor details like ordering or pagination are omitted but are not critical for correct invocation.
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 carry parameter meaning. It documents both parameters well: tag with an example and empty behavior, and scope with its enum values and empty behavior. It does not mention the tag maxLength of 100 or the default values, but otherwise compensates thoroughly.
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 (list) and resource (saved pipeline configurations), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling pipeline tools like load_pipeline or get_pipeline_history.
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 description mentions filter behavior (tag and scope) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as load_pipeline or get_pipeline_history. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.