phasefolio

query_benchmarks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Query PhaseFolio benchmark availability. Source-backed PoS benchmarks are available separately; network cost distributions and duration percentiles are planned but currently return coming_soon with null estimates rather than PhaseFolio's manual planning defaults.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`metric`	Yes	Which benchmark family to request. Cost and duration network benchmarks are currently coming_soon and return no estimate; manual wizard defaults are not returned as benchmarks.
`modality`	No	Optional modality filter ('Antibody', 'Small Molecule', 'Cell Therapy', 'Gene Therapy', etc.). Omit to return cross-modality stats.
`indication`	Yes	Indication name (e.g. 'NSCLC', 'Rheumatoid Arthritis', 'Atopic Dermatitis'). Free-form; the engine fuzz-matches to the canonical indication taxonomy.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	L1 (no-auth) returns a versioned headline set; L3 (bearer) will return granular slices once enough orgs are on the network.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the key behavioral trait that unavailable benchmarks return coming_soon with null estimates rather than falling back to manual planning defaults, which is valuable beyond annotation.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides an important caveat about availability. Information is front-loaded and scannable.

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 presence of a fully descriptive input schema and output schema, plus annotations, the description is sufficient. It explains the key availability caveat that separates this tool from siblings and sets expectations for null returns.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage with per-parameter explanations, including the coming_soon semantics for cost/duration. The description mostly reiterates this schedule/behavior, adding no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 queries PhaseFolio benchmark availability, which is a specific resource. It differentiates from siblings by noting source-backed PoS benchmarks are available separately, and clarifies that network cost/duration benchmarks are coming_soon, distinguishing it from other query 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 indicates that source-backed PoS benchmarks are handled separately, implying a different tool should be used for those. It also warns that cost and duration benchmarks return coming_soon with null estimates, so users should not expect those values. This is clear context but does not name the alternative tool explicitly.

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?