Peptide Library

Get a human study record

get_human_study

Read-onlyIdempotent

The reviewed record of one distinct human study (id like PLS-00001, from get_evidence_summary): design, planned and actual participants, groups, outcomes as the authors reported them, the authors’ conclusion kept apart from the limitations and risk of bias Peptide Library assessed, and links to every source. No dose figures or administration details.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "study_id": "<study_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_human_study"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`study_id`	Yes	Study id, e.g. PLS-00001.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`url`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`design`	Yes
`groups`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`peptide`	Yes
`sources`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`outcomes`	Yes
`disclaimer`	Yes
`population`	Yes
`limitations`	Yes
`participants`	Yes
`retrieved_at`	Yes
`risk_of_bias`	Yes
`authors_concluded`	Yes	A paraphrase of the authors’ own conclusion, not Peptide Library’s assessment.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds content scope and an explicit exclusion, but provides no further behavioral details such as permissions, rate limits, or response quirks beyond what annotations and the output schema supply.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single dense sentence with the core resource front-loaded and no filler. It could be split into shorter sentences for readability, but every phrase contributes useful scope information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated in the description. The description covers the record's composition and exclusions well; only a more explicit usage flow or sibling contrast would make it fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and already documents study_id with an example. The description adds provenance—stating the id comes from get_evidence_summary—which is meaningful context not present in 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 clearly states it returns one reviewed human study record and enumerates the content: design, participants, groups, outcomes, authors' conclusions, limitations/risk of bias, and source links. It distinguishes the record from the summary by noting the id comes from get_evidence_summary, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not contrast with all siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies the tool should be used after obtaining an id from get_evidence_summary and explicitly excludes dose figures and administration details. However, it does not say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_peptide_details or search_research, leaving routing largely implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Peptide Library tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.