nullary

search_failed_protacs

Read-onlyIdempotent

PROTACs that failed degradation/ternary/permeability.

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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds the failure-mode scope (degradation, ternary, permeability) beyond the annotations, which provide read-only/idempotent safety hints. However, it does not explain behavior like pagination or what 'failed' means in terms of data provenance, so it adds only modest context.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short and has no fluff, but it reads as a fragment rather than a clear sentence. It is concise but under-specified, so it doesn't fully earn its place.

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?

The tool has six parameters, an output schema, and many closely related sibling tools, but the description states none of the usage context, alternative tools, or clarification of failure semantics. It is materially incomplete for a search tool of this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already details all six parameters. The description adds no extra meaning to any parameter, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description identifies the resource (PROTACs) and specific failure categories (degradation/ternary/permeability), but uses a noun phrase rather than a verb, so it's not explicit that this is a search/list operation. It distinguishes from some siblings but not clearly from search_protac_e3_issues.

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 use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention the tier parameter's purpose (curated vs all) or contrast with sibling tools like search_protac_e3_issues.

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?