Skip to main content
Glama

read_cure_hypothesis

Read-only

READ ONE T1D HYPOTHESIS in full: predictions, state and who set it, and every linked evidence claim in both directions, so you can see what supports it, what argues against it and what to test next.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesHypothesis id.

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. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / maxLength
      Added value: +20000
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by enumerating what is returned: predictions, state and who set it, and evidence claims in both directions — meaningfully more than the annotations convey.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no redundant or filler clauses. Every phrase (predictions, state, bidirectional evidence) earns its place.

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?

For a single-id read-only tool with an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description is nearly complete. It could be strengthened by noting where the id comes from and by naming the list_cure_hypotheses sibling, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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?

Single required parameter 'id' with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no syntax or source guidance for the id beyond saying the read is 'in full', so baseline 3 applies.

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 (READ) and resource (ONE T1D hypothesis) with the scope spelled out: predictions, state/setter, and linked evidence in both directions. The singular 'ONE' implicitly distinguishes it from list_cure_hypotheses, though it never names that 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?

The phrase 'so you can see what supports it, what argues against it and what to test next' implies the use case (weighing evidence around a hypothesis), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g. 'id from list_cure_hypotheses'), and no named alternative.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources