List drugs/diagnostics at a specific clinical phase.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results (default 100, max 500) | |
| phase | Yes | One of "approved", "on_market", "phase3", "phase2", "phase1", "in_development", "cleared", "ldt", "ruo" | |
| node_type | No | Optional filter — "drug", "pipeline", "diagnostic", "target" |
| 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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'lists' items (implying read-only), but does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting, or whether results include full node details. The output schema covers return format, but behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness are absent.
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 sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it is extremely minimal and could include additional context without becoming verbose.
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 the rich input schema (100% coverage, 3 parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which reduces completeness for an AI agent selecting the tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema: 'at a specific clinical phase' echoes the phase parameter description. No extra context is provided for 'limit' or 'node_type'.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'drugs/diagnostics' with a specific filtering criterion ('at a specific clinical phase'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'find_by_target' or 'list_by_therapeutic_area' by specifying the phase focus.
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 implies usage when filtering by clinical phase, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'find_by_target'), nor does it state when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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.