nullary

search_failed_peptide_therapeutics

Read-onlyIdempotent

Failed peptide therapeutics.

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

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral details such as pagination behavior, result scope, or tier semantics. No contradiction exists, but the description contributes zero transparency beyond 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. 'Failed peptide therapeutics.' is only three words and does not provide actionable information; it fails to earn its place as a functional 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?

Even though the schema and annotations are rich, the description is too sparse to convey what 'failed peptide therapeutics' means, how the tier parameter changes results, or how this tool relates to other search_failed_* tools. The output schema exists but the tool's overall purpose and usage context remain unclear.

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 documented (tier, limit, offset, target, outcome, compound). The description itself adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Failed peptide therapeutics.' is a noun phrase that merely restates the tool's name and title. It lacks a verb and does not distinguish this search from sibling tools such as search_failed_bispecifics or search_failed_vaccines.

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 about when to use this tool versus its many siblings. The name implies a modality-specific search, but the description offers no selection criteria, exclusions, or context for choosing it over alternatives.

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?