Skip to main content
Glama

search_failed_clinical_antibodies

Read-onlyIdempotent

Discontinued/terminated clinical antibodies.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tierNoConfidence tier. 'curated' (default) returns the credible layer; 'all' also includes high-volume screening-grade rows (PubChem HTS inactives, CRISPR non-essential tails).curated
limitNoMaximum number of findings to return (1–100, default 25).
offsetNoNumber of findings to skip before this page, for pagination (default 0).
targetNoUniProt accession or gene symbol
outcomeNooutcome filter (inactive, failed_safety, terminated, …)
compoundNocompound name, ChEMBL ID, or InChIKey

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
findingsNoMatching negative findings (same shape as the REST /findings endpoint).
has_moreNoTrue when more results exist beyond this page.
coverage_noteNoHonest coverage caveat for thin Phase-1 modalities (present only when relevant).
query_metadataYesEcho of the resolved query — tool, limit, offset, and any applied presets.
returned_countNoFindings returned in this page.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • 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"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
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, providing the safety profile. The description adds only the subject matter (discontinued/terminated clinical antibodies) and no additional behavioral context such as pagination or result characteristics. It does not contradict 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.

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is under-specified rather than concise—it's a single fragment with no verb or contextual sentence. While it is short, it sacrifices necessary clarity and does not earn its place as a complete 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?

With 6 parameters, a detailed schema, and rich annotations, the description still fails to explain the tool's purpose, scope, or when to select it among 30+ siblings. It provides no differentiation or result context, making it inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 has 100% description coverage, so parameters like 'tier', 'target', and 'outcome' are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-specific information, earning the baseline 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 is a noun phrase—'Discontinued/terminated clinical antibodies'—that restates the tool's subject without a verb or explicit action. It does not clearly state that the tool searches for or returns these antibodies, making it more of a label than a purpose statement. It adds some scope (clinical antibodies) but lacks the verb+resource clarity expected.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools (e.g., search_failed_adcs, search_failed_bispecifics). No alternatives, exclusions, or contextual triggers are mentioned, leaving the agent to rely solely on the tool name.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources