The Cure Protocol

find_repurposing_leads

Read-only

FIND REPURPOSING LEADS: approved drugs acting on a disease domain's top associated targets and not yet recorded as studied for it, with targets, mechanism, action type and other indications. Alphabetical hypotheses, no ranking. NEXT: search_literature for the drug and disease, then propose_cure_hypothesis for Type 1 Diabetes.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Leads to return.
`disease`	Yes	Domain id, e.g. endocrinology.
`targets`	No	Targets to scan.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No	The answer. Shape depends on the tool; describe_tool documents it.
`_meta`	No	source, generatedAt, sources (per-source lastSyncedAt and ageHours), rateLimit, disclaimer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 28, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "_meta": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "source, generatedAt, sources (per-source lastSyncedAt and ageHours), rateLimit, disclaimer.",
+      "propertyNames": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "data": {
+      "description": "The answer. Shape depends on the tool; describe_tool documents it."
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 24, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / disease / maxLength
```
Added value: +20000
```
AddedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that results are 'alphabetical hypotheses, no ranking' — a trait an agent would otherwise incorrectly assume (that leads are ranked by promise). Minor gaps remain about volume/limits, but the output schema is present.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core scope front-loaded before the workflow hint — nothing is padding. The hardcoded 'for Type 1 Diabetes' in the next-step guidance is slightly awkward for a general disease-domain tool and mildly dilutes concision.

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 an output schema handling return shape and annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior, the description covers what the tool selects, what it excludes, and how it is ordered. A brief note on expected result volume or the meaning of the 'limit' default would make it fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so disease/targets/limit are already documented with bounds. The description's phrase 'top associated targets' loosely reinforces what the 'targets to scan' param does but adds no format or default detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('FIND REPURPOSING LEADS') plus the precise selection criteria: approved drugs hitting a disease domain's top associated targets that are not yet recorded as studied for it, returning targets/mechanism/action type/other indications. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_disease_drugs or get_disease_targets.

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 description gives an explicit downstream workflow ('NEXT: search_literature for the drug and disease, then propose_cure_hypothesis'), which tells the agent where this fits. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming a direct alternative for the same question, so it is clear but not fully exclusionary.

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

All The Cure Protocol tools Inspect

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

Need Help?