The Cure Protocol

get_t1d_landscape

Read-only

MAP TYPE 1 DIABETES CURE RESEARCH: every T1D trial in the index by track (A tolerance, B beta-cell restoration, C graft protection, D combination, E immunogenetics), disease stage and outcome rung measured, with ledger counts. NEXT: search_cure_evidence or submit_evidence.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`stage`	No	at-risk, prevention, new-onset, established or unspecified.
`track`	No	A, B, C, D or E.
`samples`	No	Example trials per track.

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"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 24, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / stage / maxLength
```
Added value: +20000
```
- addedInput schema / properties / track / maxLength
```
Added value: +20000
```
AddedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and scope profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context — that coverage is exhaustive ('every T1D trial in the index') and that responses include ledger counts — but says nothing about the samples cap (max 25) or how results are ordered or paginated.

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 core capability is front-loaded in one dense sentence, followed by a short routing hint; nothing is padded. The all-caps lead and parenthetical enumeration make it slightly hard to scan but the sentence budget is tight.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists and all three parameters are documented, so the description carries little return-value burden. The remaining gap is disambiguation: with get_trial_landscape, get_trial_coverage and get_trial_stats as siblings, an agent needs an explicit statement of what this tool uniquely answers, and it is absent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes beyond the schema by decoding the track letters (A tolerance, B beta-cell restoration, C graft protection, D combination, E immunogenetics), which the schema does not explain at all — a real semantic gain for the most consequential parameter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (map T1D cure research trials in the index) and enumerates the dimensions it organizes by — track, disease stage, outcome rung, ledger counts. The T1D qualifier and the A–E track taxonomy separate it from the generic sibling get_trial_landscape, though the description never explicitly acknowledges that near-identical sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'NEXT: search_cure_evidence or submit_evidence' gives a follow-on path but not a when-to-use-this-vs-alternative rule. The strongest alternative, get_trial_landscape, is never mentioned, so an agent must infer the difference from the name.

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?