bio-catalyst
Server Details
Verified biotech catalyst calendar (PDUFA/AdComm/trial readouts) anchored to official sources.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct query dimension: company ticker, drug name, or general upcoming catalysts. Descriptions clearly differentiate their inputs and outputs, leaving no ambiguity.
Two tools follow a consistent 'catalyst_for_X' pattern, but 'upcoming_catalysts' deviates slightly. Despite this, the names are still predictable and clearly indicate their purpose.
With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its niche domain. Each tool serves a distinct, necessary function without being too sparse or overloaded.
The server covers the primary ways to query catalysts (by company, drug, or upcoming). Minor gaps exist, such as filtering by date range or catalyst type, but these are acceptable given the focused scope.
Available Tools
3 toolscatalyst_for_companyAInspect
Return verified catalyst events for one public company by ticker, each linked to its official source. Free preview; full data inline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns 'verified events linked to official sources' and mentions 'free preview; full data inline', but does not discuss behavioral traits like mutability, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it is read-only. Adequate for a simple read tool but lacks deeper transparency.
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 16-word sentence that is front-loaded with purpose and covers essential information. No wasted words, every part contributes directly to understanding.
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 a single parameter, no output schema, and a simple action, the description is mostly complete: it specifies input, output nature (catalyst events linked to sources), and preview limitation. It lacks mention of sibling tools' contexts for completeness, but overall adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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%, but the description adds 'by ticker' clarifying the string parameter is a company stock ticker. While basic, it provides enough meaning. Could benefit from format hints (e.g., case sensitivity) but sufficient for the single parameter.
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 it returns verified catalyst events for one public company by ticker, each linked to official source. It distinguishes from siblings like catalyst_for_drug (by drug) and upcoming_catalysts (future events), providing specific verb and resource scope.
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 implies usage for fetching catalyst events by company ticker but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it. The free preview mention is noted but no exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
catalyst_for_drugBInspect
Return verified catalyst events referencing a drug/product name, each linked to its official source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions events are 'verified' and 'linked to official sources', but lacks details on query limits, result ordering, or handling of missing data. No contradictions with annotations as none exist.
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, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without extraneous words.
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 simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers basic usage. However, it omits details like response structure, error handling, and whether results are limited to current or historical events. More completeness would improve usability.
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 one parameter 'name' with no description (0% coverage). The description clarifies it expects a 'drug/product name', adding meaning beyond the schema. However, no further details (e.g., case sensitivity, allowed formats) are given.
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 it returns 'verified catalyst events' for a 'drug/product name', with links to official sources. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'catalyst_for_company' and 'upcoming_catalysts', which target different entities or timeframes.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, the description does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for company-level events) or provide criteria for choosing among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
upcoming_catalystsAInspect
Return upcoming biotech/pharma catalysts (clinical-trial readouts, FDA AdComm meetings, recent approvals) VERIFIED against and linked to their official source (ClinicalTrials.gov, Federal Register, openFDA). Each record includes the official sourceUrl, the exact sourceField the date came from, and a verifiedAsOf stamp. This is scheduling/reference data, NOT investment advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Horizon in days from today (default 90). | |
| kind | No | Filter by event type. | |
| limit | No | Max events (default 50). | |
| phase | No | Filter trial readouts by phase, e.g. 'PHASE3'. | |
| ticker | No | Filter to one public-company ticker. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: data is 'VERIFIED against and linked to their official source,' includes sourceUrl, sourceField, and verifiedAsOf stamp, and explicitly states it is not investment advice. This adds value beyond the schema.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, verification process, and nature of data. No redundant or unnecessary information.
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 no output schema, the description compensates by explaining key return fields (sourceUrl, sourceField, verifiedAsOf). It provides sufficient detail for an agent to understand what the tool returns, covering essential aspects for a scheduling/reference tool.
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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description reinforces the 'days' parameter as 'horizon in days' but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 it returns 'upcoming biotech/pharma catalysts' and specifies supported types (clinical-trial readouts, FDA AdComm meetings, recent approvals). It also notes that data is verified against official sources, which distinguishes it from siblings like catalyst_for_company or catalyst_for_drug.
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 says 'This is scheduling/reference data, NOT investment advice,' which provides a caveat but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus other catalysts tools. Usage context is implied by the broad scope versus more specific siblings, but no direct guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!