nullary

search_developability_failures

Read-onlyIdempotent

Antibody developability failures.

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).
`target`	No	UniProt accession or gene symbol
`outcome`	No	outcome filter (inactive, failed_safety, terminated, …)
`compound`	No	compound name, ChEMBL ID, or InChIKey

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`findings`	No	Matching negative findings (same shape as the REST /findings endpoint).
`has_more`	No	True when more results exist beyond this page.
`coverage_note`	No	Honest coverage caveat for thin Phase-1 modalities (present only when relevant).
`query_metadata`	Yes	Echo of the resolved query — tool, limit, offset, and any applied presets.
`returned_count`	No	Findings returned in this page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed3 schema fields changedMay 25, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / limit / description

Added value: +"Maximum number of findings to return (1–100, default 25)."

addedInput schema / properties / offset / description

Added value: +"Number of findings to skip before this page, for pagination (default 0)."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "coverage_note": {
+      "description": "Honest coverage caveat for thin Phase-1 modalities (present only when relevant).",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "findings": {
+      "description": "Matching negative findings (same shape as the REST /findings endpoint).",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "has_more": {
+      "description": "True when more results exist beyond this page.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "query_metadata": {
+      "description": "Echo of the resolved query — tool, limit, offset, and any applied presets.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "returned_count": {
+      "description": "Findings returned in this page.",
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "query_metadata"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 25, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description offers no behavioral information beyond what annotations already declare (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It does not clarify what counts as a 'developability failure,' whether the results are curated or screening-grade, or how results are paginated. Since the description contributes nothing, transparency is minimal.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is brief but under-specified rather than effectively concise. 'Antibody developability failures' is a fragment that could be a title, not a functional description. It fails to convey the tool's purpose or behavior, making it more of an under-specification than a well-structured concise description.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (six parameters, many sibling failures searches, output schema present), the description is incomplete. It leaves the agent to infer developability scope, result types, and how this search relates to others. The schema and annotations provide some context, but the description does not fill critical gaps like what differentiates a 'developability failure' from a safety or efficacy failure.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all six parameters (tier, limit, offset, target, outcome, compound). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema alone carries the semantic weight, yielding a baseline score of 3.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Antibody developability failures' is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name without a clear verb or action. It does not say what the tool does (e.g., 'Search for...') and does not distinguish it from sibling failure-search tools like search_failed_clinical_antibodies or search_inactive_compounds.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferred use cases, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools (e.g., search_failed_bispecifics or search_admet_failures). The description gives no context for selecting this search among the many failure-specific tools.

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?