list_supported_biomarkersList the biomarkers PRISM scores, with units and reference ranges, grouped by clinical pillar. Reference data only — no patient data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| biomarkers | Yes | The 51-marker catalog with clinical reference ranges. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it returns reference data grouped by clinical pillar with units and ranges, and explicitly states no patient data is involved.
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 concise sentences with no redundant information. The key facts are front-loaded and every word adds value.
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?
Given no parameters, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully adequate. It explains what the tool returns without needing to detail return values.
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?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning about the output (biomarkers, PRISM scores, units, reference ranges, grouping), which is sufficient.
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 states it lists biomarkers (PRISM scores) with units and reference ranges, grouped by clinical pillar, and explicitly distinguishes it from patient data, which differentiates it from siblings like analyze_biomarkers and full_prism_report.
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 indicates it is for reference data only, implying usage when listing standard biomarkers is needed, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance beyond the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct: reference/methodology functions, a fixed sample, a quick local check, and the paid full report. analyze_biomarkers and full_prism_report overlap, but the descriptions explicitly differentiate the free tiered recommendations from the paid multi-track report.
analyze_biomarkers, get_methodology, and list_supported_biomarkers follow a clear verb_noun pattern, but quick_check and full_prism_report are noun-phrase style, and sample_prism_report is ambiguous between noun and verb. The names are readable but the convention is mixed.
Six tools is a well-scoped size for this server's purpose: reference data, methodology, quick screening, full analysis, paid report, and a sample output. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the full user journey: learn about biomarkers, understand methodology, preview a sample report, run a quick check, get detailed recommendations, and purchase the full report. No obvious dead ends or critical missing operations for the stated PRISM domain.