Search clinical trials by study acronym (e.g., 'TETON'). Matches acronyms exactly (case-insensitive) by default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Specific fields to return | |
| acronyms | Yes | Trial acronyms to search for | |
| exact_match | No | If true, match acronym exactly; if false, allow partial matches | |
| max_studies | No | Maximum number of studies to return |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / acronyms / descriptionPrevious value: -"Trial acronyms to search for, e.g., ['TETON']"New value: +"Trial acronyms to search for"Input schema / properties / fields / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "items": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / fields / defaultRemoved value: -nullInput schema / properties / fields / itemsAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / fields / typeAdded value: +"array"Input schema / properties / max_studies / typePrevious value: -"integer"New value: +"number"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It successfully discloses the matching behavior (exact, case-insensitive) and hints at configurability ('by default'), but omits safety characteristics (idempotency, read-only nature), rate limits, or return value structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficiently structured sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence front-loads purpose and example; the second provides critical behavioral context about matching logic. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, flat structure, 100% schema coverage) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the primary use case and key behavioral detail. A brief mention of return values (e.g., 'returns trial records') would achieve completeness given the missing output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 100% schema coverage (baseline 3), the description adds value by explaining the relationship between the default exact matching behavior and the exact_match parameter ('by default'). The example 'TETON' also provides concrete semantic context for the acronyms parameter not present in the raw schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the specific action (Search), resource (clinical trials), and filtering mechanism (by study acronym). The example 'TETON' concretely illustrates the expected input format, and the specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_trials_by_condition or search_trials_by_intervention.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description implies usage through the specificity of 'by study acronym', it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over the nine sibling search tools (e.g., search_trials_by_condition). No prerequisites, error conditions, or explicit alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.