get_compoundFull record for one published compound by slug: aliases, category, evidence tier, routes, typical protocol, half-life, status line, canonical URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Compound slug, e.g. "retatrutide" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| compound | 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?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that only published compounds are returned and by listing the returned fields, which is beyond what the annotations alone convey.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the operation, scope, and unique lookup key, then lists the record fields. There is no filler or redundancy.
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?
With one required parameter fully documented in the schema, safety and idempotency covered by annotations, and an output schema present, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without missing critical information.
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?
The schema already covers the single parameter completely with a description and example ('retatrutide'). The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond confirming lookup by slug, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving the full record of a single compound by slug. It enumerates the exact output fields, making the tool's purpose concrete and clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_compounds or vendor-listing 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 makes the usage context clear: call when you have a compound slug and need the full published record. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the by-slug lookup requirement and the field list imply when this tool is appropriate versus searching.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: searching compounds, retrieving a full compound record, listing all vendors, and fetching vendor offers for a compound. The two compound-focused tools are clearly separated by search versus exact lookup.
Three tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: get_compound, list_vendors, search_compounds. The outlier is best_vendors_for, which is still readable and fits the domain but breaks the otherwise consistent pattern.
Four tools is a well-scoped size for a read-only compound and vendor lookup service. Each tool provides a necessary part of the workflow without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the core user journey: search for a compound, view its full record, check vendor offers for it, and inspect vendor credibility. Since this is a read-only lookup domain, mutation tools are not expected and no obvious gaps remain.