nullary

search_failed_selectivity

Read-onlyIdempotent

Small molecules that failed selectivity.

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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, so the agent knows it is safe. However, the description adds no behavioral context—it doesn't mention pagination, filtering parameters, or the open-world nature of results, and it neither enriches nor contradicts 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The eight-word description is short and without fluff, but it is a fragment rather than a full sentence. It leaves out essential context for a tool with 6 parameters, making it under-specified rather than properly concise.

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?

Given the tool's 6 optional parameters, an output schema, and numerous sibling tools, the description is far too sparse. It doesn't explain what 'failed selectivity' means operationally, how results can be filtered via target/outcome/compound, or how to interpret the openWorldHint. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke this tool over its alternatives.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the 6 parameters, so the baseline score is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, such as how 'outcome' relates to selectivity or how 'tier' affects data quality, so it does not compensate beyond the schema.

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 'Small molecules that failed selectivity' identifies the resource (small molecules) and the condition (failed selectivity), which differentiates it from sibling failure-search tools like search_safety_failures or search_mechanism_failures. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'search for' or 'list', relying on the tool name to convey the action.

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 doesn't mention any of the many sibling search tools, nor does it give examples, exclusions, or typical query contexts.

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.

TDQS

B3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes by targeting specific failure types (e.g., ADMET, ADC, bispecific). However, the high number of similarly named 'search_failed_*' and 'search_*_failures' could cause confusion without careful reading, and subtle overlaps exist (e.g., search_failed_adcs vs search_adc_linker_failures are related but distinct).

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case. The verbs 'search_', 'get_', and 'list_' are used appropriately and predictably, with no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

With 35 tools, the server is on the high side but still appropriate for the broad domain of pharmaceutical failure data across many modalities. Each tool covers a specific niche, though some consolidation might be possible.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering failures across small molecules, antibodies, ADCs, bispecifics, PROTACs, oligonucleotides, peptides, vaccines, CRISPR, and more. It includes meta-queries for indicators and targets, leaving no obvious dead ends for agents exploring failure data.

Resources

Need Help?