Cochrane Medical Reviews
Server Details
Systematic medical reviews and evidence-based healthcare research
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Score is being calculated. Check back soon.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_review_detailAInspect
Get full details of a Cochrane systematic review by PubMed ID.
Returns the complete abstract, authors, publication info, MeSH terms,
and conclusions of a Cochrane review. Use PMIDs from search_reviews results.
Args:
pmid: PubMed ID of the review (e.g. '35658166').| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pmid | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden by disclosing what data fields are returned (abstract, authors, MeSH terms, conclusions), adding necessary behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with the core action, no redundant text, and uses a structured Args section to convey parameter details efficiently without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Appropriate for a single-parameter tool; mentions output contents despite the existence of an output schema, which provides helpful context without being excessive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates effectively for 0% schema description coverage by including an 'Args' section that defines 'pmid' as a PubMed ID and provides a concrete example ('35658166').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (Get full details), target resource (Cochrane systematic review), and identifier type (PubMed ID), while distinguishing from siblings via the explicit link to search_reviews.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly directs users to 'Use PMIDs from search_reviews results,' establishing the workflow with its sibling tool, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_clinical_trialsAInspect
Search clinical trials related to a health condition via PubMed.
Finds clinical trial publications matching the condition and optional
intervention. Returns trial titles, authors, and PubMed IDs.
Args:
condition: The health condition or disease (e.g. 'type 2 diabetes',
'breast cancer', 'depression').
intervention: Optional treatment or intervention to include in search
(e.g. 'metformin', 'cognitive behavioral therapy').
limit: Maximum number of results to return (default 20, max 100).| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| condition | Yes | ||
| intervention | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses data source (PubMed) and return format (titles, authors, PubMed IDs) beyond what empty annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded summary followed by structured Args section; every sentence conveys essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately covers simple 3-parameter tool with output schema present; mentions return values but could clarify PubMed publication scope vs trial registry.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates fully for 0% schema coverage by providing concrete examples for condition/intervention and constraint details for limit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb (search) + resource (clinical trials via PubMed) and clearly distinguishes from sibling review tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage through parameter descriptions (optional intervention) but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance vs search_reviews alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_reviewsAInspect
Search Cochrane systematic reviews via PubMed.
Finds Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews articles matching
your query. Returns PubMed IDs, titles, and publication dates.
Use get_review_detail with a PMID to get the full abstract.
Args:
query: Search terms for finding reviews (e.g. 'diabetes exercise',
'hypertension treatment', 'childhood vaccination safety').
limit: Maximum number of results to return (default 20, max 100).| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return values (PubMed IDs, titles, dates) and external dependency (PubMed), but lacks mention of rate limits or read-only nature despite no annotations being present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with purpose first, followed by return values, workflow guidance, and parameter details; every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Fully adequate for the tool's low complexity; leverages existence of output schema to avoid redundant return value details while covering parameter semantics and sibling relationships.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Comprehensively compensates for 0% schema description coverage by providing concrete examples for query ('diabetes exercise') and explicit constraints for limit (default 20, max 100).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Explicitly states it searches Cochrane systematic reviews via PubMed with specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling search_clinical_trials by specifying the database.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly directs users to use get_review_detail for full abstracts, establishing a clear workflow and defining this tool's scope as discovery/listing only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail — every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control — enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management — store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts — get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption — public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics — see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback — users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!