A
licenseB
qualityD
maintenanceEnables medical evidence retrieval and analysis via AI-powered search and summarization tools.
14
8
MIT
Cochrane Medical Reviews
by com.olyport
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.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.5/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: search_reviews finds reviews, get_review_detail retrieves a specific review's details, and search_clinical_trials searches for trial publications. There is no overlap in purpose, and clear usage flow is evident from descriptions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores: search_reviews, search_clinical_trials, get_review_detail. The verbs 'search' and 'get' are appropriate for their actions, and the naming is predictable across the set.
Tool Count4/5
Three tools is at the lower bound of the well-scoped range. The server covers the core needs for searching and retrieving reviews, plus a trial search, but feels slightly thin given the broader medical research domain. Still, each tool earns its place and the count is reasonable for a focused server.
Completeness3/5
The review lifecycle is complete (search and get detailed). However, clinical trial search returns only metadata with no way to retrieve full trial details, leaving a potential dead end for agents needing more information. The domain is also somewhat ambiguous since the server name focuses on reviews but includes trials, making coverage feel incomplete.
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').
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pmid | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists the returned fields (abstract, authors, publication info, MeSH terms, conclusions) and indicates a read-only retrieval operation. It does not address error cases or auth, but for a straightforward detail-fetch tool this is adequate.
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?
The description is concise, with a clear first sentence stating the main action, a brief list of return content, and a neatly formatted Args section. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, how to obtain the required PMID, and the purpose within the broader workflow. No additional context is necessary for correct selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter with no description (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by defining pmid as 'PubMed ID of the review' and providing an example ('35658166'). This gives the agent enough semantic understanding to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The description opens with 'Get full details of a Cochrane systematic review by PubMed ID', which clearly states the action, resource, and identifier. It lists specific returned content (abstract, authors, MeSH terms, conclusions), and the focus on 'details' distinguishes it from sibling search tools.
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 explicitly states 'Use PMIDs from search_reviews results', providing clear context for when this tool should be invoked. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct to alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical selection.
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).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| condition | Yes | ||
| intervention | No |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the search source (PubMed), the return fields, and the limit parameter with default and max values. This gives meaningful insights into tool behavior. It does not mention ordering, error handling, or result filtering details beyond condition/intervention, but for a read-only search tool, the provided transparency is adequate.
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?
The description is concise and well-structured: an opening summary, a brief elaboration, and a clear Args section. Each sentence adds value, with examples and defaults included. There is no fluff, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to parse.
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?
The description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return fields. An output schema exists to handle return structure, so that is not a gap. It does not mention edge cases like empty results or sorting, but for a simple search tool, the description is adequate. Sibling names provide additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter details. It does so effectively: condition and intervention come with concrete examples, and limit includes default and max values. Every parameter is semantically explained, fully covering the gaps left by the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the tool searches clinical trials related to a health condition via PubMed, with an optional intervention. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (search_reviews, get_review_detail) by specifying clinical trials and PubMed. Return fields (titles, authors, PubMed IDs) further reinforce the purpose.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool: to find clinical trial publications for a condition and optional intervention. It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately. Lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, so not a 5.
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).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses the data source (PubMed/Cochrane), return fields (PubMed IDs, titles, publication dates), and limit cap (max 100). However, it does not describe search semantics like relevance ranking or error handling, leaving some behavioral details uncovered.
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 description is well-structured with a purpose statement, return info, a cross-reference, and an Args section. It is informative without being bloated, though the Args section could be slightly more compact.
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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers likely questions: what it searches, what it returns, and how to proceed to full abstracts. It lacks mention of pagination or result size beyond max, but overall it is sufficient for a straightforward search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only provides types and defaults, but the description enriches both parameters: query gets example search terms, and limit gets a max constraint and default value. This fully compensates for the lack of schema property descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states 'Search Cochrane systematic reviews via PubMed' and 'Finds Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews articles matching your query,' specifying verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on systematic reviews and directing follow-up to get_review_detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells the user to 'Use get_review_detail with a PMID to get the full abstract,' providing a clear alternative for deeper lookup. It also includes example query formats, helping the agent understand appropriate search term usage.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- Alicense-qualityAmaintenanceEnables traceable scholarly literature reviews using free APIs, generating reports where every claim links to evidence IDs.MIT
- Alicense-qualityAmaintenanceMCP server that enables AI assistants to drive systematic literature review workflows, including screening, downloading, converting, and reviewing papers through natural language conversation.27AGPL 3.0
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceEnables comprehensive medical research by querying and analyzing data across ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, and FDA databases with AI-enhanced cross-database insights, risk assessments, and competitive intelligence.1311MIT