Free medical evidence tools: graded CliniAtlas answers, PubMed metadata and EU SmPC links.
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool has a distinct role: search_evidence_library vs get_evidence_answer are a clear search/fetch pair, and lookup_eu_medicine vs lookup_pubmed target different registries. Descriptions explicitly cross-reference each other (search slug -> get answer), leaving little confusion, though search/get remain a close pair.
All names use snake_case verb_noun form (get_/search_/lookup_), which is predictable and readable. The verbs vary slightly (get, search, lookup) but the variation is semantically meaningful rather than chaotic.
Four tools is a small but well-scoped set for a read-only evidence lookup server: a search/fetch pair plus two external reference lookups. Nothing feels redundant, though the surface is on the lean side.
Core read lifecycle (search library -> fetch full answer) is covered, plus two external lookups. Gaps are minor and self-documented (PubMed returns no abstracts, EU lookup excludes national medicines), and the read-only nature means no CRUD writes are expected.
Full CliniAtlas answer to a clinical or research question, with numbered citations.
Searches the literature, guidelines and EMA documents and writes a cited answer, the
same answer cliniatlas.com gives. Uncited parts are reported through grounding.
Usually takes 35 to 50 seconds: if status is
"running", call get_cliniatlas_answer with job_id. Free for ChatGPT users up to a daily
limit (see free_answers_remaining_today). Do not include patient identifiers. For
literature research and education, not individual care decisions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | ||
| question | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Collect the answer for a job_id returned by ask_cliniatlas.
Waits up to about 40 seconds for the result. If status is still "running", call it
again with the same job_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Full published answer: cited paragraphs, limitations and graded sources.
Use a slug from search_evidence_library. Citation markers like [1] refer to the
numbered sources. Show the sources and intended_use with the answer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| locale | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious context: citation markers like [1] map to numbered sources, and the agent should surface sources and intended_use alongside the answer — real behavioral guidance beyond the structured fields.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by sourcing and citation handling. Every sentence carries information; the only mild inefficiency is the imperative 'Show the sources...' which addresses the agent rather than describing the tool.
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?
An output schema exists so return structure need not be restated, and the description still names the key content pieces (cited paragraphs, limitations, graded sources) plus the citation-marker convention. The only gap is locale, which is neither described nor disambiguated anywhere.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains where slug comes from (search_evidence_library) but gives no format details, and the locale parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of two params completely undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb (get) and resource (full published evidence answer) and enumerates the payload — cited paragraphs, limitations, graded sources — which distinguishes it from the sibling search_evidence_library. It stops short of an explicit 'this returns one document by identifier' framing but is clearly more than vague.
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 line 'Use a slug from search_evidence_library' establishes the precondition and the correct upstream tool, giving the agent a clear workflow context. There is no explicit when-not guidance or a named alternative for other lookup paths, which keeps it below a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Centrally authorised EU medicines by brand name or active substance.
Returns the EMA summary, authorisation status and ema_url, the EMA page whose
Product information section holds the SmPC. Nationally authorised medicines are not
in this register; check the national agency for those.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it names the returned fields (EMA summary, authorisation status, ema_url) and points to where the SmPC lives on the returned page.
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 tight sentences, both earning their place, with the scope and the exclusion front-loaded. Slightly telegraphic alongside the title but not wasteful.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still usefully flags the key fields. Combined with the annotation coverage and the name-vs-substance note, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the param burden, and it does explain the key 'name' parameter by stating it accepts either a brand name or an active substance. The 'limit' parameter is left entirely undiscussed, so compensation is only partial.
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?
Names the specific resource (centrally authorised EU medicines) and the lookup key (brand name or active substance), and explicitly excludes nationally authorised medicines. It is clearly separable from lookup_pubmed and search_evidence_library, though it relies on the name/title for the verb 'lookup' rather than stating an action directly.
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?
Provides a concrete when-not: nationally authorised medicines are absent from this register and the agent should consult the national agency instead. This is a real selection constraint, but it does not route the agent to any of the sibling tools for adjacent query types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Citation metadata for a PubMed ID: title, journal, year, authors, DOI and design.
Abstracts are not returned; follow pubmed_url to read them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pmid | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: abstracts are excluded and the agent should follow pubmed_url to read them. That is real value beyond the structured fields, though pagination/error behavior is unaddressed.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the return payload and followed by the one caveat that matters. Nothing is redundant or padding.
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?
With an output schema present, return structure needn't be explained, yet the description still summarizes it usefully. Combined with the abstract caveat, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only sibling routing and parameter format are thin.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so only the regex pattern documents the single pmid argument. The description partly compensates by framing pmid as a PubMed ID, but adds no format, length, or validity detail beyond that. Marginal value over the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Citation metadata for a PubMed ID') and enumerates the returned fields (title, journal, year, authors, DOI, design), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like lookup_eu_medicine or search_evidence_library, but the PubMed-specific scope makes the distinction reasonably clear.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance or routing versus the sibling lookup/search tools. The only constraint offered is negative scope ('Abstracts are not returned'), which is a limit, not usage guidance. An agent must infer that this is the single-record citation fetch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find published CliniAtlas evidence answers matching a clinical question.
Returns question, summary and link for each match. The library is a small set of
worked answers to common questions. Use get_evidence_answer for the full answer.
locale (for example de, fr, hr) returns translated answers where they exist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| locale | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond them: the library is small, results are question/summary/link, and locale returns translations 'where they exist' (i.e., partial coverage, not guaranteed).
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?
Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then adds return fields, scope, and the routing hint. Four short lines with little waste, though the return-field line is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists.
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 3-param read-only search with an output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, alternative tool, and locale behavior. The only gap is limit semantics, which the schema's default/max partly carry on its own.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, and it partially does: locale is explained with examples ('de, fr, hr') and its translation behavior. However, limit (default 5, max 10) and query constraints are left entirely to the schema, so compensation is incomplete.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Find published CliniAtlas evidence answers matching a clinical question') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_evidence_answer, which it names. An agent can route between search and full-answer retrieval without opening either schema.
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?
Explicitly directs the agent to get_evidence_answer for the full answer, giving a clear when-to-use-this-vs-alternative rule. It also scopes expectations ('small set of worked answers'), but gives no guidance against the other siblings (lookup_pubmed, lookup_eu_medicine).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Live search of PubMed, Europe PMC, clinical guidelines and EMA documents.
Returns up to eight sources for a clinical or research question, each with its study
type, evidence level and link, usually within seconds. It does not write an answer:
cite the sources by number, or use ask_cliniatlas for a full checked answer. Do not
include patient identifiers. Searches are limited per user per day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | ||
| question | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
ask_cliniatlasget_cliniatlas_answersearch_medical_evidenceget_evidence_answerlookup_eu_medicinelookup_pubmedsearch_evidence_libraryMedical RAG: semantic search for clinical guidelines, drug interactions, diagnoses & EHR data.
Medical RAG: semantic search for clinical guidelines, drug interactions, diagnoses & EHR data.
Traceable scientific novelty and evidence assessment with source-linked results and a human gate.
Diagnoses, drugs & lab codes: ICD-11, SNOMED, LOINC, RxNorm, MeSH, ATC, CID-10. 33 tools, MIT.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.