Hlido

BioMCP

Specialized verticals · tested 2026-08-09 · re-test due 2026-11-09 · by the Hlido desk, not the vendor

In short: One binary and one command grammar over the biomedical databases researchers already trust — unusually well-specified for agent use, and it names its upstream providers instead of hiding them.

6 PASS · 1 FAIL of 7 public-surface claims

Visit BioMCP → scorecard.json

Quick answer

BioMCP scores 82/100 (STEADY) on Hlido’s independent, hands-on test (reviewed 2026-08-09). STEADY (82) for an unusually disciplined agent surface — a small documented command grammar, explicit gettable-vs-search-only typing so agents cannot invent calls, per-client MCP configuration, remote HTTP with health pr

Hlido Editor · 2026-08-09

BioMCP replaces the usual routine of jumping between PubMed, ClinVar, MyGene, cBioPortal and a dozen auth schemes with a single command surface that works identically for a human at a terminal and an agent over MCP. The design decision that stands out on the captured surface is provenance: rather than presenting itself as an oracle, the documentation tabulates exactly which upstream provider answers each entity — gene resolves through MyGene.info, UniProt, Reactome, QuickGO, STRING, GTEx, Human Protein Atlas, DGIdb, ClinGen; variant through MyVariant.info, ClinVar, CIViC, OncoKB, cBioPortal, GWAS Catalog. For a domain where a fabricated citation is a safety problem rather than an annoyance, publishing the source map is the right instinct. The command grammar (search / get / suggest / discover / enrich / batch, plus cross-entity pivots) is small enough to memorise and is explicitly designed so agents cannot synthesise unsupported calls — the docs separate 'gettable' from 'search-only' entities for exactly that reason. Distribution is thorough: a curl installer, a PyPI CLI, an MCP config generator for Codex, Claude Code, Claude Desktop, Cursor, Cline and VS Code, a Streamable HTTP mode with /health and /readyz probes, and installable agent skills. What the public surface does not offer is any independent validation — no accuracy evaluation, no benchmark, no named institutional users — and some legs (Semantic Scholar, AlphaGenome) need API keys the docs mention only in passing. This is a well-built retrieval layer over trusted sources; it is not, and does not claim to be, a clinical decision tool.

Why STEADY

STEADY (82) for an unusually disciplined agent surface — a small documented command grammar, explicit gettable-vs-search-only typing so agents cannot invent calls, per-client MCP configuration, remote HTTP with health probes, and a published map of which upstream database answers which entity. Held below VITAL because the public surface carries no accuracy evaluation, benchmark, or named institutional adopter, and in biomedical retrieval that evidence is the thing that would justify the top band.

Public-surface checklist

What we saw

4 screenshots captured by the Hlido engine during the reviewed run (run-57a45674a8595dc9-biomcp-org). Our own captures — not vendor marketing material.

BioMCP — run screenshot 1 (home.png)
home.png
BioMCP — run screenshot 2 (page_biomcp.png)
page_biomcp.png
BioMCP — run screenshot 3 (pagegetting-started_installation_.png)
pagegetting-started_installation_.png
BioMCP — run screenshot 4 (pageconcepts_what-is-biomcp_.png)
pageconcepts_what-is-biomcp_.png

What it does well

What it fails at

Best for

  • Researchers and bioinformaticians who currently move between several biomedical databases by hand
  • Agents that need biomedical retrieval with a traceable source for every answer
  • Teams standardising on MCP who want one configured server rather than several bespoke API clients

Not recommended for

  • Clinical decision-making — this is a retrieval layer over public sources, not a validated clinical tool
  • Anyone who needs a published accuracy or coverage guarantee before adopting
  • Environments that cannot depend on many third-party APIs being reachable

Pricing & access

Derived from Hlido-held evidence only (engine checklist + editorial text); quotes are verbatim from the scorecard; not vendor-supplied; re-derived daily. Verify current prices on the vendor's pricing page. Last verified 2026-08-09.

Related agents

Agent relevance

API CLI MCP SDK Behavioral-testable

Agentic-Commerce Readiness 83/100 · COMMERCE-READY

Independent readiness for agent delegation & transaction. How it’s scored · check live

Agent-native by design. stdio MCP via `biomcp mcp-config --client <name>` for Codex, Claude Code, Claude Desktop, Cursor, Cline and VS Code, or Streamable HTTP via `biomcp serve-http` for shared deployments. The command grammar and the gettable/search-only typing are written specifically so an agent constructs only calls that exist.

Agent-friendly score: 9/10

Evidence

scorecard.json · transparency passport · registry · methodology

More: compare agents · best of · developer tools · incident registry

Verdict by Hlido Editor, our automated editorial system · Method: public-surface-tier-2+editorial-narrative-v2 · Methodology version 2026.05 · Next review due 2026-11-09

How this page was produced. The scores, claim verdicts and evidence come from automated hands-on testing of the product’s public surface. The written analysis is drafted by an AI system, and pages publish without a person reviewing each one. Hlido publishes this record and answers for it — tell us if anything here is wrong and we will correct it.

Embed this trust badge

Hlido trust score

Live, always-current independent score — free to embed on your site or README. No vendor pays for placement.

Markdown

[![Hlido trust score](https://hlido.eu/badge/genomoncology-biomcp.svg)](https://hlido.eu/check/?agent=genomoncology-biomcp)

HTML

<a href="https://hlido.eu/check/?agent=genomoncology-biomcp"><img src="https://hlido.eu/badge/genomoncology-biomcp.svg" alt="Hlido trust score"></a>