Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

The Cure Protocol

by com.negativeresistance
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_target_evidence

Read-only

EXPLAIN A GENE-DISEASE LINK: per ontology term, the source association broken down by evidence type (genetic, somatic, known drug, pathway, expression, animal model, literature) and data source. Scores are source data, not a ranking. NEXT: get_target_profile for druggability and safety, search_literature for the papers.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
geneYesHGNC symbol or ENSG id.
diseaseYesDomain id, e.g. endocrinology.
ontologyIdNoOne of the domain's ontology ids.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoThe answer. Shape depends on the tool; describe_tool documents it.
_metaNosource, generatedAt, sources (per-source lastSyncedAt and ageHours), rateLimit, disclaimer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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"
+}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / disease / maxLength
      Added value: +20000
    • addedInput schema / properties / gene / maxLength
      Added value: +20000
    • addedInput schema / properties / ontologyId / maxLength
      Added value: +20000
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly and openWorld, but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious interpretive caveat: "Scores are source data, not a ranking," which prevents misuse of the numeric output. It doesn't mention behavior for unresolved identifiers or how many ontology terms are returned, so not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the evidence taxonomy, then the interpretive caveat, then routing. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the description supplies the interpretive frame (evidence types, scores are not rankings) plus next steps. It omits edge-case behavior — e.g., what happens when the gene–disease pair has no ontology associations — which matters given openWorldHint=true.

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 is 3, and the description earns a bump by tying "per ontology term" to the ontologyId parameter — clarifying that it scopes/groups the evidence breakdown rather than just filtering. It says nothing additional about the gene or disease parameters beyond the schema's own HGNC/domain-id notes.

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 ("EXPLAIN A GENE-DISEASE LINK") and immediately specifies the unit of output ("per ontology term") plus the dimensions of the breakdown (evidence type, data source). This cleanly separates it from siblings like get_disease_targets or get_target_profile without needing the 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?

The "NEXT:" clause explicitly routes the agent onward — get_target_profile for druggability and safety, search_literature for papers — which is real alternative-selection guidance. It lacks an explicit "use this instead of X when..." framing or any preconditions on gene/disease identifiers, so it stops short of a 5.

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 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