Search clinical trials by sponsor/organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Specific fields to return | |
| sponsors | Yes | Sponsor organizations to search for | |
| 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 / 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Search' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to clarify pagination behavior (despite max_studies parameter), return format, available field options, or rate limiting concerns.
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?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no redundant words. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it is arguably too brief to stand alone as sufficient documentation.
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?
For a simple three-parameter search tool with complete schema documentation, the description is minimally adequate. However, gaps remain in behavioral disclosure and sibling differentiation that would be necessary for robust agent decision-making, especially without an output schema or annotations.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage (fields, sponsors, max_studies are all documented). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas but not compensating with usage examples or format specifications.
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?
The description clearly states the verb (Search), resource (clinical trials), and specific filter criterion (sponsor/organization). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like search_trials_by_condition or search_trials_by_acronym, which would help the agent select the correct search method.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling search alternatives (e.g., search_trials_by_condition, search_trials_combined). It lacks prerequisites, exclusions, or recommendations for query construction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.