Skip to main content
Glama

Cactus

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Resolve

resolve
Read-onlyIdempotent

NCI CACTUS chemical identifier resolver. Convert one chemical identifier (a drug/chemical name, CAS number, SMILES, InChI, or InChIKey) into a single representation: smiles (canonical SMILES), stdinchi (standard InChI), stdinchikey (standard InChIKey), iupac_name, names (synonym list), formula (molecular formula), mw (molecular weight), or cas (CAS registry number(s)). Keyless, plain-text API.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
identifierYesChemical name, CAS number, SMILES, InChI, or InChIKey (e.g. "aspirin", "50-78-2", "CC(=O)Oc1ccccc1C(O)=O").
representationYesOne of: smiles, stdinchi, stdinchikey, iupac_name, names, formula, mw, cas.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context beyond these: 'Keyless, plain-text API' reveals authentication requirements and response format, and 'single representation' clarifies the output behavior. This enhances transparency without contradicting 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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence names the resolver, the second specifies exact inputs, outputs, and their meanings, and the third adds the auth/format note. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a simple conversion tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers input types, output representation options, response format, and authentication. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but these are not critical for a keyless, idempotent API. It also does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, which slightly limits completeness.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description goes further by explaining what each representation value means (e.g., 'smiles (canonical SMILES)', 'stdinchi (standard InChI)'), which adds meaning beyond the bare enum list in the schema.

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 explicitly states the action ('Convert'), the resource ('chemical identifier'), and the output ('single representation') with a detailed list of possible output types. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'resolve_entity' by its specific focus on chemical identifiers and the NCI CACTUS resolver.

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 implied through the purpose: use when you need to convert a chemical identifier to a standard representation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, when not to use, or provide any exclusion criteria relative to the many sibling tools.

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

All Cactus 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly differentiated roles, but several pairs blur boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently functionally identical, and identify vs resolve both wrap the same NCI CACTUS service. The detailed descriptions rescue most selections, but an agent could easily mispick between the research and chemical lookup options.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are mostly snake_case and readable, but conventions are mixed: some are verb-first (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, search_within) while many are noun-first or domain-prefixed (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending). There is no single predictable pattern for a new tool's name, though subfamilies (polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*) are internally consistent.

Tool Count3/5

At 33 tools, this is well above the typical well-scoped range and carries real selection overhead. The unusually broad purpose—a data router plus prediction-market analysis, memory, subscriptions, and several standalone utilities—partially justifies the count, but it still feels heavy and could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

For its varied subdomains, coverage is strong: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts, and prediction markets span research, edge scanning, arbitrage, fill-risk, and edge telemetry. Minor gaps exist—such as no direct tool to fetch a specific citation URI by identifier, and the redundant stable/beta router pair—but there are no obvious dead ends.

Resources