participantsEntity participants of a pathway.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes | Entity participants in a pathway |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "R-HSA-68886"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of items returned.",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "items": {
+ "description": "Entity participants in a pathway",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "className": {
+ "description": "Type of participant",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "dbId": {
+ "description": "Internal database ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "displayName": {
+ "description": "Participant name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "schemaClass": {
+ "description": "Schema class",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "stableId": {
+ "description": "Stable identifier",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "items",
+ "count"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as output format, rate limits, or any special behavior. No contradiction, but no added transparency.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is a fragment with no sentence structure or useful information, providing no value despite its brevity.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the description does not leverage it. With one required parameter and a vague purpose, the description is far from complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It fails to explain what the tool returns or how the input relates to the output.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the 'id' parameter, but it does not. It is unclear whether 'id' refers to a pathway ID, participant ID, or entity ID. The description gives no hint about what value to pass or how it is used.
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 'Entity participants of a pathway' is a noun phrase without a verb, making it unclear what action the tool performs. It vaguely hints at retrieving participants but does not specify whether it lists, gets, or resolves them, and it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'pathway' or 'pathways_for_entity'.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or any exclusions. Given the sibling tools, there is no indication how 'participants' fits into the broader toolset.
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.
Many tools have overlapping research purposes (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and multiple bet-related tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges). Reactome-specific tools are few but mixed in with unrelated tools, causing ambiguity.
Tool names are inconsistent: some snake_case (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), some camelCase (generate_llms_txt, list_subscriptions), and some mixed (pipeworx_feedback, poly market_arbitrage). No uniform pattern.
35 tools is excessive for a Reactome server, as only a handful are Reactome-specific. Many tools are unrelated (e.g., bet_research, compare_entities), making the tool count feel bloated and unfocused.
The Reactome-specific tools cover basic pathway lookups but miss key operations like reactions, complexes, or advanced queries. The server's completeness for the Reactome domain is poor, diluted by many non-Reactome tools.