Fetch multiple biomedical entities concurrently in one request. Specify ids for genes, variants, drugs, diseases, trials, articles, or patents to get them all at once.
Get multiple entities in parallel
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inputs | Yes | List of entity requests |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.1Input schema / properties / inputs / items / properties / entity / enumPrevious value: -[
- "gene",
- "variant",
- "drug",
- "disease",
- "trial",
- "article"
-]New value: +[
+ "gene",
+ "variant",
+ "drug",
+ "disease",
+ "trial",
+ "article",
+ "patent"
+]v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation, and the description adds the parallel-execution behavior. However, it does not disclose failure modes, partial-result behavior, ordering guarantees, or batch limits.
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 with no redundant wording. The core behavior and primary distinguishing trait, parallel retrieval of multiple entities, is front-loaded.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns or at least hint at response behavior, but it does not. It also omits guidance on invalid IDs, mixed entity types, or relationship to sibling single-get tools, leaving the agent with only the input schema to work from.
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 100%, and the input schema fully documents the 'inputs' array, including required fields, the entity enum, and optional sections. The description adds no extra parameter semantics but also does not need to compensate for a schema gap.
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 ('Get') and resource ('multiple entities in parallel'), making the batch nature clear and distinguishing it from the single-entity get_* siblings. It is not fully explicit that the entities are selected by 'id' or that the entity types are limited to the enum, but the input schema supplies that detail.
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 'multiple entities in parallel' implies the tool is for batch retrieval rather than repeated single calls, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer batch_get over gene_get, variant_get, etc. No exclusions or thresholds are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.