get_synonymsList all names (synonyms) for a CID — common names, IUPAC, trade names, CAS numbers, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cid | Yes | PubChem Compound ID | |
| max_results | No | Cap (default 50) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cid | Yes | PubChem Compound ID | |
| total | Yes | Total number of synonyms available | |
| synonyms | Yes | List of names (common, IUPAC, trade, CAS, etc.) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "cid": 3672
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "cid": {
+ "description": "PubChem Compound ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "synonyms": {
+ "description": "List of names (common, IUPAC, trade, CAS, etc.)",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "description": "Total number of synonyms available",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "cid",
+ "total",
+ "synonyms"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the types of names returned, which is useful. However, it says 'List all names' while the schema includes a max_results parameter with a default cap, which is misleading and not clarified in the description. This creates a minor transparency gap.
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 clear sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It is efficient, though it omits mention of the max_results cap, which would have improved completeness without adding much length.
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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it fails to explain the max_results cap and its impact on the 'list all' claim. For a simple tool, the description is nearly complete but has a notable omission.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds no additional information about the parameters, so it does not add value beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'names (synonyms) for a CID', and provides specific examples like common names, IUPAC, trade names, CAS numbers. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as search_by_name or resolve_entity.
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 implies usage when needing synonyms for a given CID, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools. Sibling tools like search_by_name exist, but no guidance is provided.
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.