Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Guidetopharmacology

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Ligand Interactions

ligand_interactions
Read-onlyIdempotent

What proteins a drug acts on — the curated target interactions for a ligand in the Guide to PHARMACOLOGY (IUPHAR/BPS), each with the target PROTEIN NAME, interaction type (Agonist/Antagonist/Inhibitor), action and binding affinity (pKi/pIC50). Pass the drug by name ("imatinib") and it is resolved for you; a GtoPdb ligand id also works. The response always names the ligand it actually read, so an id that turns out to be a different compound is visible rather than silent. Requires a GtoPdb API key — register free at guidetopharmacology.org/login.jsp and pass your own via _apiKey.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax interactions to return (default 25).
ligandNoDrug/ligand name, e.g. "imatinib". Resolved against the GtoPdb ligand list.
ligand_idNoGtoPdb ligand id, e.g. 4139 for aspirin. Optional — give this OR ligand.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "ligand": "imatinib"
-  },
-  {
-    "ligand_id": 4139
-  },
-  {
-    "ligand_id": "4139",
-    "limit": 40
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "_apiKey": "your-guidetopharmacology-api-key",
+    "ligand": "imatinib"
+  },
+  {
+    "_apiKey": "your-guidetopharmacology-api-key",
+    "ligand_id": 4139
+  },
+  {
+    "_apiKey": "your-guidetopharmacology-api-key",
+    "ligand_id": "4139",
+    "limit": 40
+  }
+]
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "ligand_id": 4139
-  },
-  {
-    "ligand_id": "4139",
-    "limit": 40
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "ligand": "imatinib"
+  },
+  {
+    "ligand_id": 4139
+  },
+  {
+    "ligand_id": "4139",
+    "limit": 40
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / ligand
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Drug/ligand name, e.g. \"imatinib\". Resolved against the GtoPdb ligand list.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / ligand_id / description
      Previous value: -"GtoPdb ligand id, e.g. 4139 for aspirin."New value: +"GtoPdb ligand id, e.g. 4139 for aspirin. Optional — give this OR ligand."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "ligand_id"
-]New value: +[]
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "ligand_id": 4139
+  },
+  {
+    "ligand_id": "4139",
+    "limit": 40
+  }
+]
  4. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: the response always names the ligand actually read so a mis-resolved id is visible, and it discloses the API-key requirement with a registration URL. It does not describe pagination behavior, but the auth and ambiguity-disclosure details are substantive additions.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by output fields, input modes, resolution behavior, and the auth requirement. It is dense and every sentence carries information, though the density slightly reduces scannability.

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, the description compensates by listing the returned fields, and it covers auth and parameter modes. The only gap is operational detail like how many interactions are returned by default, which the schema's limit description handles instead.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the 3 parameters are already self-documenting (baseline 3). The description goes further by explaining the resolution semantics for the ligand parameter and the id-or-name duality, information the schema does not convey, which lifts it above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("What proteins a drug acts on — curated target interactions for a ligand") and enumerates the returned fields (protein name, interaction type, action, affinity), so the scope is unambiguous. It implies the ligand→target direction, which softly distinguishes it from the sibling target_interactions, but it never names that sibling, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

The description explains how to invoke it (pass the drug by name and it is resolved, or supply a GtoPdb ligand id), which is useful, but it gives no when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and never names alternatives such as target_interactions or search_ligands. Usage is implied by the purpose statement rather than stated as a routing rule.

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

All Guidetopharmacology 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