get_complexGet a single Complex Portal record by its accession (e.g. CPX-7762). Returns the complex's participants (subunits) with UniProt identifiers, biological roles and stoichiometry, plus systematic name, function, species, and description. Keyless. Complements UniProt/IntAct/STRING.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | A complex accession like "CPX-7762". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "CPX-7762"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc. The description adds behavioral context: it returns participants with UniProt IDs, roles, stoichiometry, and other fields. It also notes 'Keyless' meaning no authentication needed, which is not in 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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence clearly states action and example; second sentence lists return content and context.
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 read tool with comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose, return structure, and context (keyless, complements other resources). No output schema exists, but the description explains return values adequately.
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 already fully describes the single parameter with an example. The description adds 'by its accession' but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 it retrieves a single Complex Portal record by accession, with an example (CPX-7762). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_complexes by focusing on a specific fetch by ID.
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 mentions 'Keyless' and 'Complements UniProt/IntAct/STRING', providing context for when to use this tool (access by accession) and implying alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.
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.
Several tools serve nearly identical purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently functionally identical, and polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and bet_research all hunt prediction-market opportunities with overlapping outputs. The verbose descriptions help, but an agent can easily call the wrong one.
All 33 names use lowercase snake_case with descriptive, mostly verb-first words (ask_, compare_, discover_, search_), and domain suites are consistently prefixed (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*). Minor deviations like entity_profile or recent_changes (noun/adjective-first) keep it from a perfect 5.
33 tools is well into the 'too many' range, especially for a server nominally about the narrow Complex Portal database. Many tools (memory, feedback, subscriptions, trending) are generic meta-utilities unrelated to the stated purpose.
For the stated 'Complex Portal' domain, only search_complexes and get_complex exist, with no organism-scoped search, batch access, or additional lifecycle coverage, making the surface severely incomplete for that name. The actual Pipeworx platform is broadly covered, but the server-name mismatch makes the set feel incomplete for its advertised purpose.