Search diseases by name, phenotype, or keyword to find relevant biomedical conditions and matches.
Search for diseases by name, phenotype, or keyword. Response is an envelope: { results, warnings?, errors? } (issue #130)
| 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.
v1.6.0-alpha.10Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / offset / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991v1.6.0-alpha.1Input schema / properties / query / minLengthAdded value: +1v0.7.1Input 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by declaring the response envelope shape ({ results, warnings?, errors? }), which matters since there is no output schema. It stops short of describing ranking or result content.
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?
Two short sentences front-loaded with the core purpose and then the response shape. The trailing '(issue #130)' is internal issue-tracker noise that doesn't earn its place, a minor blemish.
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 read-only three-parameter search tool, the description plus a fully documented schema plus the disclosed envelope shape covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Lacking only routing guidance relative to the many sibling search/get tools.
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%, so query, limit, and offset are already fully documented with defaults and bounds. The description adds nothing beyond the schema for parameters, which is the expected baseline.
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 verb and resource ('Search for diseases') and enumerates the searchable facets (name, phenotype, keyword). It distinguishes itself from disease_get by the 'search' verb, though it doesn't explicitly say so.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus disease_get, gene_diseases, or other discovery tools. Usage is only implied by the verb 'search' and the mention of search facets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.