PubMed MCP Server

PubMed Article Detail

pubmed_article_detail

Read-only

Retrieve the complete record of a PubMed article using its PMID, including title, authors, abstract, keywords, MeSH terms, references, and more.

Instructions

Fetch the full record of a PubMed article by its PMID. Returns title, authors with affiliations, abstract, keywords, MeSH terms, references, similar articles, publication types, full-text sources, journal info, and more.

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": {
      "pmid": "<pmid>"
    },
    "name": "pubmed_article_detail"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pmid`	Yes	PubMed ID (e.g. "33423454")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and open-world, and the description adds useful context about the specific fields returned (title, authors, abstract, etc.), which goes beyond the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with the purpose front-loaded. The second sentence lists return fields; while somewhat lengthy, it is still concise and informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the comprehensive list of return fields in the description, the description fully covers the needed information.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description does not add parameter details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'by its PMID' mirrors the schema description). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full record of a PubMed article'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool pubmed_search, which is for searching.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies when to use (fetching details for a known PMID) and distinguishes from pubmed_search, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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

Deploy Server