Retrieve detailed disease information by ID, including gene associations, phenotypes, and pathways. Specify sections to tailor the output to your research needs.
Get detailed disease information by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| sections | No | Sections to include | |
| disease_id | Yes | Disease ID (e.g., "DOID:0060268", "C0018794") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.1Input schema / properties / sections / items / enumPrevious value: -[
- "core",
- "gene_associations",
- "phenotypes",
- "pathways",
- "survival",
- "all"
-]New value: +[
+ "core",
+ "gene_associations",
+ "phenotypes",
+ "pathways",
+ "all"
+]v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the response is 'detailed,' but it does not explain how sections or limit affect the returned data or what the response shape looks like. It adds some context without being fully transparent.
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?
One concise sentence with no redundant wording. The key selector, 'by ID,' is placed at the end but the overall structure is clear and efficient.
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?
This is a simple read-only lookup with one required parameter, and the schema covers the important inputs. With no output schema, 'detailed disease information' gives a reasonable expectation of the return value. The description is complete enough for this level of tool complexity.
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?
Two of the three parameters (disease_id and sections) already have useful schema descriptions, and the description reiterates the central role of the ID. However, the limit parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the tool description itself adds no further parameter insight.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('detailed disease information'), and the key access pattern ('by ID'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from disease_search and other disease_* siblings.
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 'by ID' clearly communicates when this tool should be used: when the agent already has a disease identifier. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list exclusion cases, so it stops just short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.