targetTarget record by ChEMBL target ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chembl_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tax_id | No | ||
| organism | No | ||
| pref_name | No | Preferred name | |
| target_type | No | Type of target | |
| target_chembl_id | No | ChEMBL target ID | |
| target_components | No |
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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the resource. It does not mention what happens if the ID is not found, whether the result is a full record or summary, or any side effects beyond what annotations imply.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple lookup tool, though it borders on under-specification. Every word serves a purpose.
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?
The tool is simple, has robust annotations, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. Still, it lacks usage guidance and any context about what a 'target record' contains or when to use this tool over siblings. It is minimally viable but not complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does state that the parameter is a 'ChEMBL target ID', which adds some meaning beyond the property name 'chembl_id'. However, it provides no format, example, or constraints. Given only one parameter, the added value is marginal.
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 'Target record by ChEMBL target ID' identifies a specific resource (ChEMBL target) and the identifier type used. It clearly separates this tool from siblings like 'molecule' or 'mechanism'. The verb 'Target' is slightly ambiguous (could mean 'the target record' vs 'to target'), but the meaning is clear in context.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the function without mentioning prerequisites, excluded scenarios, or sibling tools. The agent receives no explicit direction for selecting this over 'molecule' or 'entity_profile'.
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.
The tool list mixes a small ChEMBL dataset with a large Pipeworx toolkit, and several Pipeworx tools are near-duplicates (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk). An agent would struggle to pick the right tool among overlapping prediction-market and research tools, and the ChEMBL tools are buried under irrelevant functionality.
Naming conventions are mixed: ChEMBL tools use bare nouns (molecule, target, activities) while Pipeworx tools use inconsistent verb_noun phrases (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim) and noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes). There is no predictable pattern across the set.
37 tools is far too many for a server named 'Chembl', especially since the majority are unrelated Pipeworx features. The count is justified neither by the apparent ChEMBL scope nor by a coherent overall purpose, making the server feel bloated and unfocused.
The ChEMBL subset is reasonably complete (search, molecule, target, activities, mechanism, drug_indications), and the Pipeworx side includes broad research/data tools, but the set lacks a unified purpose. Gaps include no direct assay/detail retrieval and no coherent lifecycle across the mixed domains.