phasefolio

get_methodology

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a PhaseFolio methodology section's full content (rNPV engine, backtest, PoS calibration, IRA framework, development paths, clinical stage normalization, evidence standards, network benchmarks, COGS benchmark, SG&A benchmark, tax benchmark, SEC EDGAR deal-term extraction). Designed for citation: each section has a stable URL and a methodology version identifier you can reference in analysis output.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`section`	Yes	Which methodology section to fetch. 'rnpv' covers the core risk-adjusted NPV calculation: cumulative PoS, midpoint-discounted risk-adjusted development costs, the S-curve ramp/plateau/LOE revenue lifecycle net of COGS/SG&A/tax, WACC discounting, the rNPV and Unadjusted-NPV equations, Monte Carlo / expected NPV, and one-at-a-time sensitivity; 'backtest' covers the validation methodology and AUC/CI numbers; 'pos-calibration' covers the indication × modality × biomarker matrix, expanded modality normalization into the eight benchmark baselines, the scored multipliers including the engine 2.6.0 biomarker_quality drug-specific multiplier (oncology solid tumor, Phase II/III), the Phase 1 ORR extracted-but-not-scored signal with its Phase 0 governance disclosure, and the non-scored drug-specific risk flags; 'ira-framework' covers the Year-9/Year-13 MFP cliff modeling and the separate IRA classification for expanded modalities such as RNA Therapeutics, Protein Degrader, Radioligand, Oncolytic Virus, and Cancer Vaccine; 'development-paths' covers development-path tiers, automatic-effect policy, and the no path-based PoS/default-multiplier rule; 'stage-normalization' covers exact clinical labels, work packages, canonical PoS gates, and the no label-only PoS modifier rule for Phase 1b/2a/2b, adaptive, pivotal, expansion, platform, bridging, and related labels; 'evidence-standards' covers source tiers and freshness rules; 'network-benchmarks' covers anonymization and cohort cuts; 'cogs-benchmark' covers the per-modality COGS% default bands and price-sensitivity methodology; 'sga-benchmark' covers the per-commercial-model SG&A% default bands (orphan/specialty/primary-care); 'tax-benchmark' covers the US-statutory-21% default tax rate, effective-rate reality, and the NOL cap; 'sec-deal-terms' covers the SEC EDGAR 8-K Item 1.01 deal-term extraction pipeline (cohort, extractor + classifier versions, fields extracted, v0 vs v1 scope).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that each section has a stable URL and methodology version identifier, which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence followed by a compact list of section names. While the list duplicates some schema enum content, it provides a quick overview that helps the agent scan available sections. The citation sentence earns its place by explaining a key design feature.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), a rich output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, the citation use case, and the full scope of sections available.

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?

The only parameter 'section' has 100% schema description coverage, with an enum and detailed explanation for each value. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 starts with a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a PhaseFolio methodology section's full content'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_dossier or get_evidence. It enumerates the exact methodology sections covered, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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 states it is 'Designed for citation' and mentions stable URLs and version identifiers, implying the intended use case. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like query_benchmarks, but the clear scoping to methodology sections makes the appropriate context evident.

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

All phasefolio tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct entity or operation: get_* fetches specific objects, query_* searches datasets, list_scenarios enumerates, while triage_asset and verify_export are standalone actions. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity among the 13 tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase with underscores. The verbs (get, list, query, triage, verify) clearly indicate the action, and nouns identify the target. This uniform scheme makes the tool purpose predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 13 tools, the server is well-scoped within the ideal 3–15 range. Each tool addresses a specific aspect of the drug-development analysis domain (project/scenario context, evidence, methodology, benchmarks, risk, landscape, SEC deals, dossier, verification, triage) without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The read-side surface is thorough for the domain: projects, scenarios, evidence, methodology, benchmarks, drug risk, landscape, SEC deals, dossier, export verification, and triage are all covered. The only minor gap is the lack of a list_projects tool, but get_project can fetch a known project, providing a workaround.

Resources

Need Help?