Get freshness details for a single node: writeup age, enrichment hash match, staleness score, validation score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_id | Yes | The node identifier (e.g. "pembrolizumab") |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists output fields but does not mention read/write safety, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior on invalid input (e.g., missing node). The output schema exists but the description adds no behavioral context.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key purpose and output details. Every word is relevant and there is no wasted text.
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 1-param tool with output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. Could be improved by specifying when to use this vs siblings and any side effects.
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%, baseline of 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; the schema already describes node_id with example 'pembrolizumab'. No enrichment.
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 the tool's action ('Get freshness details for a single node') and lists the specific fields returned (writeup age, enrichment hash match, staleness score, validation score). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_node' (node info) and 'get_staleness_report' (broader 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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the description, but there is no mention of exclusions or when to prefer it over similar tools like 'get_node' or 'get_coverage'.
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.
Tools have mostly distinct purposes, though get_node and get_pos_score both provide probability-of-success data (get_node includes a summary, get_pos_score gives detailed factors). Descriptions clarify the difference, so confusion is minimal.
Naming follows a verb_noun pattern but mixes verbs: 'find', 'get', 'list', 'search'. Within the 'get' group, all are consistent. The mix is not chaotic and remains predictable.
13 tools cover the biomedical domain well without being excessive. Each tool has a clear purpose, from searching and listing to fetching detailed node data, statistics, and specialized reports.
For a read-only database, the tool set is complete. It supports search, filtered queries, detailed node retrieval, specialized data (PoS, freshness, staleness), and statistics. No obvious gaps for typical query needs.