ct_get_studyGet full trial details by NCT ID (e.g., 'NCT04567890'). Returns protocol, eligibility criteria, primary outcomes, sponsor, locations, and results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nct_id | Yes | ClinicalTrials.gov NCT identifier (e.g., "NCT05462717") |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Raw ClinicalTrials.gov API response for a single study",
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "nct_id": "NCT05462717"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns specific fields (protocol, eligibility, etc.), which is consistent and provides additional transparency about the output 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and concisely lists return contents. Every part is informative with no extraneous words.
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?
Given the simple input schema with one parameter, comprehensive annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to use it, and what is returned.
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 100% with a clear param description. The tool description adds a matching example ('NCT04567890') but provides no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full trial details by NCT ID'), clearly differentiating from siblings like ct_search (which is for searching) and ct_trials_by_location (filtered by location). It also lists the types of data returned.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (when you have an NCT ID and need full details). While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools or states when not to use it, the sibling context makes the usage intent clear.
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.