Search for genes by symbol, name, or keyword to find relevant gene records. Filter results by chromosome and control output with limit and offset.
Search for genes by symbol, name, or keyword
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results | |
| query | Yes | Gene symbol, name, or keyword to search for | |
| offset | No | Result offset | |
| chromosome | No | Filter by chromosome (e.g., "7", "X") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.1Input schema / properties / gene_typeRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Filter by gene type",
- "enum": [
- "protein-coding",
- "ncRNA",
- "pseudo"
- ],
- "type": "string"
-}v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's search semantics are consistent with those. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as result ordering, pagination behavior, or match semantics, but it does not contradict the annotated safety profile.
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 unnecessary words. The core action and input types are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 search tool with four parameters, all fully documented in the schema and no output schema. The description gives enough context for a basic call; the only minor gap is the absence of any note about return format or behavior when no matches are found.
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 every parameter (query, limit, offset, chromosome) is already documented in the schema. The description mainly restates the query parameter's purpose and adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 the specific verb 'Search' with the resource 'genes' and specifies the query types: symbol, name, or keyword. It clearly communicates the tool's role and is distinct from gene_get in intent, though it does not explicitly differentiate from 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?
The description implies the tool should be used when searching for genes by symbol, name, or keyword, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over gene_get or other sibling search tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.