nullary

search_drug_drug_interaction_failures

Read-onlyIdempotent

Drug-drug interaction 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).
`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

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description provides no behavioral disclosure. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so those traits are covered. However, the description adds no context about what the results represent, how the curated/all tiers behave, or any limitations. It is not contradictory, but adds no value beyond annotations.

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 extremely terse: a single short noun phrase. This is under-specification rather than effective concision. It does not earn its place because it conveys almost no information beyond the tool name.

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

Completeness1/5

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

The description is far too minimal for a tool with 5 parameters, an output schema, and a large set of siblings. It does not explain what a drug-drug interaction failure is, how to use the tier or outcome filters, or what distinguishes this tool from other failure searches. Complete inadequacy for guiding an agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a meaningful description. The tool description itself adds nothing about parameters, but the schema fully documents them. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the heavy lifting is done by the schema.

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 is a noun phrase, 'Drug-drug interaction failures,' lacking a verb or action. It restates the subject of the tool name without specifying the search/retrieval behavior. While it identifies the domain, it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling search tools beyond the topic.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context, no comparisons to sibling tools, and no mention of appropriate scenarios. It is not misleading, but it completely fails to guide the agent.

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.

Resources

Need Help?