Read-only MCP connector for The Dose Guy source-linked peptide and compound database. Search 260+ compounds, compare vendors and prices, inspect ranking evidence, and retrieve canonical page links. No authentication required.
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: search_compounds discovers compounds, get_compound retrieves compound details, best_vendors_for fetches offers for a compound, and list_vendors lists vendors. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
Three tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern (get_compound, list_vendors, search_compounds), but best_vendors_for breaks the pattern by using a descriptive phrase without a leading verb. Overall naming is still snake_case, readable, and mostly predictable.
Four tools is a well-scoped size for a read-only compound and vendor lookup server. Each tool covers a necessary function without redundancy or bloat.
The core workflows are covered: find a compound, get its details, see vendor offers, and view vendor trust information. Minor gaps exist, such as no browse-all-compounds endpoint and no individual vendor detail tool, but agents can work around these with the existing tools.
Live offers for one published compound, one best offer per vendor, sorted by price per mg ascending (blends and unpriceable products last). Prices are integer minor units plus display strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| compoundSlug | Yes | Compound slug, e.g. "retatrutide" |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | No | |
| offers | Yes | |
| compound | Yes | |
| compoundUrl | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, it discloses meaningful behavior: results are live, limited to one best offer per vendor, sorted by price per mg ascending, with blends and unpriceable products placed last, and prices represented as integer minor units plus display strings. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context that materially helps an agent reason about results.
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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior, then adds sorting and price-format details that are essential for interpreting results.
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?
Given a single parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only and idempotent behavior, the description covers the key operational details: scope, offer selection, sort order, and price format. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter compoundSlug, including an example value. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond implying the slug must refer to a published compound, 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a specific verb-resource pair: returns live vendor offers for one published compound, with one best offer per vendor. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on per-vendor best pricing for a specific compound rather than compound details or vendor lists.
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?
The phrase 'for one published compound' implies the tool requires a specific compoundSlug and is used when vendor pricing offers are needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over get_compound, list_vendors, or search_compounds, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Full record for one published compound by slug: aliases, category, evidence tier, routes, typical protocol, half-life, status line, canonical URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Compound slug, e.g. "retatrutide" |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| compound | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that only published compounds are returned and by listing the returned fields, which is beyond what the annotations alone convey.
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?
The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the operation, scope, and unique lookup key, then lists the record fields. There is no filler or 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?
With one required parameter fully documented in the schema, safety and idempotency covered by annotations, and an output schema present, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without missing critical information.
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?
The schema already covers the single parameter completely with a description and example ('retatrutide'). The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond confirming lookup by slug, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: retrieving the full record of a single compound by slug. It enumerates the exact output fields, making the tool's purpose concrete and clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_compounds or vendor-listing 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?
The description makes the usage context clear: call when you have a compound slug and need the full published record. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the by-slug lookup requirement and the field list imply when this tool is appropriate versus searching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Every tracked vendor that is currently alive: DOSE SCORE (when reviewed), liveness status, last-verified date, trust chips, canonical review URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| vendors | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the 'currently alive' filter and the 'when reviewed' condition for DOSE SCORE, which are not inferable from annotations or the empty input schema.
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?
One compact sentence front-loads the core scope—'Every tracked vendor that is currently alive'—and then lists the relevant returned fields with no filler or repetition.
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?
For a zero-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states the entity, the filter, and the key output attributes. No prerequisites, pagination details, or alternative routing are needed to invoke this tool correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is complete, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on output semantics rather than parameter details since there are none to explain.
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?
The description clearly states the tool lists every tracked vendor that is currently alive, and enumerates the returned attributes (DOSE SCORE, liveness status, last-verified date, trust chips, canonical review URL). The noun 'vendor' and scope 'every tracked vendor' naturally distinguish it from siblings like search_compounds and get_compound, and from best_vendors_for.
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?
The description tells what the tool returns but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as best_vendors_for. It does not mention exclusions or conditions, so an agent receives only implied context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Case-insensitive search over published compound names and aliases (brand names, research codes, shorthand like "reta"). Returns the top 10 matches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Name or alias fragment, e.g. "reta" or "Mounjaro" |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral details: case-insensitivity, restriction to published compounds, and a top-10 result limit. It does not contradict the annotations.
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?
One well-structured sentence that front-loads the core behavior and includes examples without wasted words. Every element earns its place.
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?
For a single-parameter read-only search tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description covers scope, matching semantics, and result limits. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
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?
The schema already covers the query parameter at 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by explaining case-insensitive matching and providing illustrative alias examples, which is helpful beyond the schema text.
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 a specific verb ('search') plus resource ('published compound names and aliases') and adds concrete examples like 'reta' and 'Mounjaro'. The scope and return behavior ('top 10 matches') clearly distinguish it from siblings like get_compound.
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?
The description gives clear context that this is a fuzzy, case-insensitive lookup over names and aliases, which implies use for partial-name discovery rather than exact retrieval. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
best_vendors_forget_compoundlist_vendorssearch_compounds
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.