nullary

get_compound

Read-onlyIdempotent

A compound (structure, name, max clinical phase) + its full negative profile across modalities/sources.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tier`	No	Confidence tier. 'curated' (default) returns the credible layer; 'all' also includes high-volume screening-grade rows (PubChem HTS inactives, CRISPR non-essential tails).	curated
`limit`	No	Maximum number of findings to return (1–100, default 25).
`offset`	No	Number of findings to skip before this page, for pagination (default 0).
`chembl_id`	No	ChEMBL molecule ID, e.g. CHEMBL941.
`inchi_key`	No	Compound InChIKey (provide one of inchi_key, chembl_id, or pubchem_cid).
`pubchem_cid`	No	PubChem Compound ID (CID).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`compound`	No	Identity: pref_name, chembl_id, inchi_key, max_phase.
`findings`	No	Every negative finding for this molecule.
`query_metadata`	Yes	Echo of the resolved query.
`returned_count`	No

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the scope 'full negative profile' but gives no details about pagination, tier semantics, or data handling beyond what the schema already documents. This is acceptable given the annotations, but offers minimal extra transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the key purpose: a compound plus its negative profile. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy. It is exemplary in conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the rich schema, comprehensive annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description's high-level summary is largely sufficient. It captures the unique value of this tool (full negative profile) while leaving identifier details to the schema. A slightly more explicit statement about usage context would make it fully complete, but it is already adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All six parameters are thoroughly described in the schema (100% coverage), including defaults, constraints, and usage notes for compound identifiers. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so the schema carries the full burden, earning the baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies the tool returns 'a compound (structure, name, max clinical phase) + its full negative profile across modalities/sources,' which clearly identifies the resource and output scope. It distinguishes from sibling search_* tools by indicating a direct retrieval of a compound entity, though it lacks an explicit verb other than the tool name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many search_* alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as providing one of chembl_id, inchi_key, or pubchem_cid. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving the agent without context for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All nullary tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes by targeting specific failure types (e.g., ADMET, ADC, bispecific). However, the high number of similarly named 'search_failed_*' and 'search_*_failures' could cause confusion without careful reading, and subtle overlaps exist (e.g., search_failed_adcs vs search_adc_linker_failures are related but distinct).

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case. The verbs 'search_', 'get_', and 'list_' are used appropriately and predictably, with no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

With 35 tools, the server is on the high side but still appropriate for the broad domain of pharmaceutical failure data across many modalities. Each tool covers a specific niche, though some consolidation might be possible.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering failures across small molecules, antibodies, ADCs, bispecifics, PROTACs, oligonucleotides, peptides, vaccines, CRISPR, and more. It includes meta-queries for indicators and targets, leaving no obvious dead ends for agents exploring failure data.

Resources

Need Help?