search_compoundsCase-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 | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: searching compounds, retrieving a full compound record, listing all vendors, and fetching vendor offers for a compound. The two compound-focused tools are clearly separated by search versus exact lookup.
Three tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: get_compound, list_vendors, search_compounds. The outlier is best_vendors_for, which is still readable and fits the domain but breaks the otherwise consistent pattern.
Four tools is a well-scoped size for a read-only compound and vendor lookup service. Each tool provides a necessary part of the workflow without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the core user journey: search for a compound, view its full record, check vendor offers for it, and inspect vendor credibility. Since this is a read-only lookup domain, mutation tools are not expected and no obvious gaps remain.