Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GreenCycle Compound Atlas

by com.greencyclepedia
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Body structures carrying a target

list_structures_for_target
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when asked "where in the body". The body map structures (organs and regions) that carry a molecular target: for CB1 and CB2 the qualitative receptor density (0 to 4, a teaching summary of the literature, not a measurement), other receptors listed for a structure, and the structures where a compound effect at this target is mapped, with the compound and its evidence grade, and the measured 3D structure of the target (entry, method, resolution, organism, paper, licence, viewer link, still picture) or "No measured structure yet". Educational reference, not medical advice. Example arguments: {"target":"CB1"}.

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": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "list_structures_for_target"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many items to return, at most 99.
targetYesTarget id, name or gene, for example "CB1" or "TRPV1".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so this adds meaningful extra context: the 0-4 density is a qualitative teaching summary rather than a measurement, the payload includes licence and viewer links, and missing data returns the explicit string 'No measured structure yet'. The 'not medical advice' disclaimer further frames interpretation. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering behavior.

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?

Content is mostly load-bearing for a tool with no output schema, but it is delivered as one sprawling sentence that lumps four distinct return facets together. A short bulleted or clause-separated structure would have made the payload scannable without adding length.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly, including caveats and a missing-data fallback. Only the meaning of the limit parameter and result ordering are left unaddressed, a minor gap for a read-only listing tool.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (target as id/name/gene, limit capped at 99). The description only restates the target argument via an example and says nothing about limit's effect on the enumerated result sets. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 names a concrete resource ('The body map structures (organs and regions) that carry a molecular target') and front-loads a matching trigger, 'Use when asked "where in the body"'. It does not explicitly state how it differs from siblings like get_target, but the 'where in the body' framing separates it well enough to select.

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?

The opening clause gives a clear when-to-use trigger plus a concrete example argument ({"target":"CB1"}). There is no when-not guidance and no sibling alternative named (e.g., use get_target for target-level facts), 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.

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