Skip to main content
Glama

Oliver's mTOR Atlas

by io.github.open-mtor-atlas
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Find contested claims

find_contradictions
Read-onlyIdempotent

Relations the Atlas marks as contested or that carry conflicting studies, with both sides of the evidence. status says which; breakdown splits the total. A contested relation with no conflicting study listed is flagged conflicting_studies_missing; relations named in its note or boundary are shown in named_in_text (a mention is not evidence). Paged: pass next_offset as offset for the rest. Optionally limited to one entity.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
briefNoShorten the long boundary and note text (text_truncated is set); get_relation has the full text.
limitNoMaximum 50; a larger value is capped at 50.
dedupeNoSend a repeated study in full only once. Pass false for a full card every time.
entityNo
offsetNoFor the next page: pass next_offset from the previous answer.
only_contestedNoKeep only relations the Atlas flags contested, not those that merely carry conflicting studies.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Maximum 50; a larger value is capped at 50."
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
      Previous value: -50New value: +9007199254740991
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / brief
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Shorten the long boundary and note text (text_truncated is set); get_relation has the full text.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / dedupe
      Added value: +{
+  "default": true,
+  "description": "Send a repeated study in full only once. Pass false for a full card every time.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "description": "For the next page: pass next_offset from the previous answer.",
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / only_contested
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Keep only relations the Atlas flags contested, not those that merely carry conflicting studies.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes beyond them by describing return-side behavior: status indicating the category, breakdown splitting totals, the conflicting_studies_missing flag, and the named_in_text caveat that 'a mention is not evidence.' It also discloses pagination via next_offset.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then output semantics, then paging and the entity restriction. Sentences are dense and telegraphic but each carries substantive content; no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no required parameters, the description should explain the result shape, and it does reasonably well (status, breakdown, flags, named_in_text, truncation hint via brief). Some ambiguity remains around exact response structure, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is high (83%), so the schema largely carries parameter meaning. The description adds only the offset-as-next_offset paging instruction and the one-entity restriction; it says nothing about limit's cap, brief, or dedupe, which the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource and scope: 'Relations the Atlas marks as contested or that carry conflicting studies, with both sides of the evidence.' That clearly distinguishes it from a generic relation lookup, though it never names the sibling (find_relations, get_relation) it should be contrasted with, leaving the differentiation to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: it signals the tool is for contested/conflicting relations and notes the optional entity restriction and paging. There is no explicit 'when to use this instead of find_relations' or any exclusion, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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

All Oliver's mTOR Atlas toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources