Claidex Health Snapshot
claidex_health_snapshotReturn Sentinel metrics, coverage, graph counts, recent automation runs, MRS bands, and preprint-watch summaries.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Claidex MCP
by com.claidex
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states 'Return' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention whether the snapshot is real-time, cached, or if it has any side effects or limitations. This is a minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that lists all returned items without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description lists the expected return content, which provides a baseline understanding. However, it lacks explanations of key terms like 'MRS bands' and 'Sentinel metrics', and does not describe the output format, leaving the description minimally sufficient but incomplete for a tool with no schema.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. It correctly avoids adding redundant parameter information.
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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and enumerates six distinct data categories (Sentinel metrics, coverage, graph counts, recent automation runs, MRS bands, preprint-watch summaries), making the tool's function clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools that may return subsets of this data, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 such as query_failure_graph or search_preprint_flags. The description only lists the return contents, leaving the agent to infer use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Several tools have overlapping responsibilities: search, search_claims, search_preprint_flags, and claidex_claim_risk_matrix all query claim/failure data, while rank_documents_by_embedding and rerank_documents both perform relevance ranking. The compatibility-oriented fetch/search tools add further confusion because their names collide with fetch_research_url and search_claims.
Naming Consistency3/5
Names are grouped by prefixes (claidex_, query_, search_, run_) but the groups use different conventions, and bare verbs like 'fetch' and 'search' sit alongside prefixed forms like 'fetch_research_url' and 'search_claims'. The pattern is readable but not uniform.
Tool Count3/5
24 tools is at the heavy end for an MCP server; while the breadth reflects many biomedical data sources and utilities, the count includes several meta/compatibility tools that could be consolidated. It is borderline but not unreasonable.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers the core biomedical workflows: searching claims, retrieving full claim content, querying failure graphs, checking preprints, and looking up drugs/trials/targets/adverse events. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct way to fetch a single clinical trial by ID beyond the search function, and no write/update operations for claims, but these are likely outside the read-only research scope.