Search for diseases by name, phenotype, or keyword to retrieve matching disease records and associated details.
Search for diseases by name, phenotype, or keyword
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results | |
| query | Yes | Disease name, phenotype, or keyword to search for | |
| offset | No | Result offset |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.1Input schema / properties / disease_typeRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Filter by disease type",
- "type": "string"
-}v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations declaring readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the safety profile is already covered; the description does not contradict it. It does not add details such as result ordering, empty-result behavior, or pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit/offset fields.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and the accepted query types.
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 search tool, the description plus fully documented parameters and safety annotations are enough to invoke it correctly. The main omission is how results feed into disease_get/disease_drugs, but that is not required to make a valid call.
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 query property already explains the search input in the same terms as the tool description. The description adds no additional meaning to limit or offset beyond their schema text.
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 names a specific action ('Search'), a resource ('diseases'), and the input modes ('name, phenotype, or keyword'), so a model can see this is the fuzzy/query entry point for diseases. It is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast with disease_get or other sibling search tools.
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?
There is no guidance about when to choose this over gene_search, drug_search, or disease_get, and no exclusions are given. The description only states what the tool does, leaving selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.