moleculeFull molecule record by ChEMBL ID (e.g. "CHEMBL25" = aspirin).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chembl_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_phase | No | Maximum development phase | |
| pref_name | No | Preferred name | |
| molecule_type | No | Type of molecule | |
| structure_type | No | ||
| cross_references | No | ||
| therapeutic_flags | No | ||
| molecule_chembl_id | No | ChEMBL molecule ID | |
| molecule_properties | No | ||
| molecule_structures | No |
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 declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the example, but there is no contradiction. It is adequate given the annotations.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes an illustrative example without unnecessary words.
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 one-parameter lookup with an output schema present, the description provides all necessary information: what the tool does, the input format, and an example. No returned-value explanation is needed given the output schema.
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 input schema has 0% property description coverage, but the description explicitly explains the chembl_id parameter and provides a helpful real-world example (CHEMBL25 = aspirin), adding meaning beyond the schema's bare type and example.
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 identifies the tool as retrieving the full molecule record for a given ChEMBL ID, with a concrete example linking CHEMBL25 to aspirin. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific aspects like mechanism or target.
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 the tool is for full molecule lookups but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as mechanism or target. The example provides context but no exclusions or alternative guidance.
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.
The tool list mixes a small ChEMBL dataset with a large Pipeworx toolkit, and several Pipeworx tools are near-duplicates (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk). An agent would struggle to pick the right tool among overlapping prediction-market and research tools, and the ChEMBL tools are buried under irrelevant functionality.
Naming conventions are mixed: ChEMBL tools use bare nouns (molecule, target, activities) while Pipeworx tools use inconsistent verb_noun phrases (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim) and noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes). There is no predictable pattern across the set.
37 tools is far too many for a server named 'Chembl', especially since the majority are unrelated Pipeworx features. The count is justified neither by the apparent ChEMBL scope nor by a coherent overall purpose, making the server feel bloated and unfocused.
The ChEMBL subset is reasonably complete (search, molecule, target, activities, mechanism, drug_indications), and the Pipeworx side includes broad research/data tools, but the set lacks a unified purpose. Gaps include no direct assay/detail retrieval and no coherent lifecycle across the mixed domains.