Skip to main content
Glama

search_failed_oligonucleotides

Read-onlyIdempotent

ASOs/siRNAs that failed engagement/developability.

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

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the semantic scope of 'failed engagement/developability' but does not disclose behavioral details like pagination, tier filtering, or the nature of open-world results. This modest addition is consistent with 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is a fragment lacking a verb, which slightly reduces its communicative efficiency. It earns a 4 rather than a 5 because of this minor structural weakness.

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 six optional parameters, an output schema, and many closely related sibling tools, this description is too sparse. It does not explain what a returned finding looks like, how the tier parameter affects results, or how this tool differs from search_oligo_delivery_failures. An agent would need to rely heavily on sibling names and schema to make an informed selection.

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 (tier, limit, offset, target, outcome, compound) fully described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema carries the burden effectively, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the specific resource (ASOs/siRNAs) and the failure category (engagement/developability), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_failed_guides or search_oligo_delivery_failures. However, it is a noun phrase without an explicit verb, so the action of searching is implied rather than stated.

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 given on when to choose this tool over closely related alternatives such as search_oligo_delivery_failures or search_failed_guides. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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