Perform pathway enrichment analysis on a gene list to reveal overrepresented biological pathways. Converts gene symbols into functional insights for hypothesis generation.
Perform pathway enrichment analysis for a gene list
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| genes | Yes | List of HGNC gene symbols |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a read operation. The description adds little beyond stating the analysis nature. It does not disclose computational behavior, dependencies, or output specifics, but with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is adequate but not enriched.
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 that immediately communicates the tool's function. There is no extraneous information, and it is front-loaded with the action and target.
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?
With only one parameter and annotations present, the description is minimal. It lacks details about the output or return format, which is important since there is no output schema. For a complex analysis tool, additional context about the analysis method or result type would improve completeness.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, with a clear description ('List of HGNC gene symbols'). The tool description does not add further details about parameter constraints, formatting, or validation rules, so it scores at the 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 clearly identifies the action ('perform pathway enrichment analysis') and the resource ('a gene list'). This is distinct from sibling tools that retrieve or search for individual gene-related data, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
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 description states what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implies enrichment analysis as opposed to simple gene lookup, but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.