Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GreenCycle Compound Atlas

by com.greencyclepedia
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Compare compounds

compare_compounds
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when asked "THC versus CBD" or a similar comparison. Two to four compounds side by side, target by target, with each action, evidence grade, measured binding values and PubMed identifiers, the targets they share and the Greencyclepedia comparison page when one exists. Educational reference, not medical advice. Not a ranking of which is better for anyone. Example arguments: {"ids":["thc","cbd"]}.

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": {
      "ids": "<ids>"
    },
    "name": "compare_compounds"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYesTwo to four compound ids or names, for example ["thc", "cbd"].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 genuinely non-derivable behavior: the response is structured target-by-target with evidence grades and PubMed IDs, and includes a Greencyclepedia link only "when one exists", which warns of an optional field. The educational-reference disclaimer is useful framing but not operational detail.

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 trigger is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by return contents, caveats and an example. The long enumeration of returned fields is dense but each item is informative; the trailing example arguments are the one mildly redundant element.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so thoroughly (per-target actions, evidence grades, binding values, PMIDs, shared targets, optional comparison page). Combined with the caveat and example, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single `ids` parameter already documents the two-to-four constraint and gives the ["thc", "cbd"] example. The description's example arguments restate what the schema already supplies, so it adds no new meaning beyond the structured field.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource (compare two to four compounds side by side, target by target) and enumerates the payload: actions, evidence grades, binding values, PubMed IDs, shared targets and a comparison page. This clearly separates it from single-entity siblings like get_compound or search_compounds without needing to open either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives an explicit trigger ("Use when asked 'THC versus CBD' or a similar comparison") and a scoping caveat ("Not a ranking of which is better for anyone"), so the agent knows the intent and the framing constraint. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the single-compound case, leaving that routing to inference.

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

All GreenCycle Compound Atlas toolsInspect
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.

Resources