Skip to main content
Glama

Proposition 65

by dev.toolstop

Find listed chemicals by partial name

search_prop65
Read-only

Search the Proposition 65 list for chemicals whose name contains a fragment. Use this when you do not have an exact name or a CAS number, or to survey a family of related substances. Returns matching chemicals with their CAS numbers, toxicity endpoints, listing dates and delisted flags, capped at a limit with truncated set when there were more. It searches names only, so it will not find a chemical listed under a synonym you did not search for, and a result here is not a determination that a warning is required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
termYesA fragment of a chemical name, such as 'benz' or 'chromium'.
limitNoMaximum results to return. Defaults to 25.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNoHow many entries matched in total.
statusYesOutcome of the lookup. `not_found` is not a clearance. `ambiguous` means the name matched several entries and you should pick one or use a CAS number.
editionNoThe edition of the list this answer came from.
resultsNoThe matching chemicals.
truncatedNoWhether more matched than were returned.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint by disclosing the name-only search behavior, the synonym limitation, the `truncated` flag behavior, and the returned fields (CAS, toxicity endpoints, listing dates, delisted flags). It even notes that a result is not a determination that a warning is required. This is rich behavioral context with no contradiction to annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then usage context, then limitations and return behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers use cases, constraints, and result interpretation. It mentions the truncated flag and the non-determinative nature of the result, which is essential for agents to set expectations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions (term as a fragment, limit as max results), so baseline is 3. However, the description adds the important behavioral detail that results are capped and `truncated` is set when there are more matches, which clarifies the effect of the limit parameter beyond the schema's wording.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Proposition 65 list for chemicals whose name contains a fragment.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like check_prop65 (exact lookup) and list_recent_listings by emphasizing partial-name matching and family surveys.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this when you do not have an exact name or a CAS number, or to survey a family of related substances.' It also gives a clear exclusion: the tool searches names only and will miss synonyms, implying that other tools are better for exact or synonym-based queries.

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

All Proposition 65 toolsInspect
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

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: exact lookup by CAS/name, list metadata, recent listings by year, and fragment search. There is no overlap in functionality, so an agent can reliably select the right tool.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_prop65, describe_prop65_list, list_recent_listings, search_prop65. The pattern is predictable and uniform across the set.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for a focused Proposition 65 lookup server. Each tool serves a distinct need without redundancy or bloat, and the count is appropriate for the domain.

Completeness5/5

The server covers the core operations for the Prop 65 list: exact lookup, search, recent additions, and list metadata. These cover the main compliance and research workflows, with no obvious missing operations that would cause agent failures.

Resources