PepEvolution Peptide Sources

get_dosing_guide

Read-onlyIdempotent

Doses used in published research for a peptide, each row with route, caveats, and citations, plus regulatory status, evidence summary, pharmacology, safety notes, and a worked reconstitution example. Educational research context, NOT a dosing recommendation or medical advice. Covers compounds with a /dosing page; others return matched compound with has_dosing_guide:false.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "compound": "<compound>"
    },
    "name": "get_dosing_guide"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`compound`	Yes	Compound name, slug, or alias, e.g. "BPC-157", "tirzepatide", "NAD+"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds the important non-obvious trait: for compounds without a /dosing page it still returns the matched compound with has_dosing_guide:false rather than erroring. That partial-result disclosure plus the content inventory is exactly the beyond-annotations context an agent needs.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the returned content, followed by the disclaimer and the coverage caveat. It is dense (a long enumerated list) but every clause carries distinct information; a small trim of the field enumeration would make it tighter.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers return contents, the degenerate-result behavior, coverage limits, and the interpretive caveat. Nothing material an agent needs before calling 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'compound' parameter already documents that names, slugs, and aliases are accepted with examples. The description adds no additional matching or normalization semantics, so the schema is doing the work and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (published-research doses for a peptide) and enumerates exactly what a result row contains: route, caveats, citations, regulatory status, evidence summary, pharmacology, safety notes, and a worked reconstitution example. It also states its coverage boundary, so an agent can tell it apart from calculate_reconstitution and find_peptide_sources without inspecting any 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?

It gives clear framing for use — 'educational research context, NOT a dosing recommendation or medical advice' — and states the applicability condition (only compounds with a /dosing page). It does not explicitly name the sibling to use instead for vendor pricing, sourcing, or raw reconstitution math, so tool selection is implied rather than spelled out.

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

All PepEvolution Peptide Sources 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?