Search ClinicalTrials.gov and log every retrieved study to the audit trail.
Args:
query: condition/disease search string, sent to ClinicalTrials.gov verbatim
agent_id: which agent is asking, e.g. "aletheia:advocate"
max_results: how many studies to retrieve (default 5)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description coherently explains the write side-effect ('log every retrieved study to the audit trail') that justifies the non-readOnly hint. It also notes the query is sent verbatim to an external service, reinforcing open-world behavior. No contradiction; it adds genuine context but omits rate-limit/return behavior.
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?
Front-loads the action, then lists args compactly with no filler. The Args block is well-organized and each line earns its place, though it is slightly fragmented rather than prose.
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?
For an external-network search tool with no output schema, it covers params and the audit-side-effect well, but says nothing about the shape of returned studies, result limits, or behaviors of the external call. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so for all three params: query is defined as a condition/disease string sent verbatim, agent_id is clarified with a concrete format example, and max_results notes the default. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Search ClinicalTrials.gov') and adds a second behavior (logging studies to the audit trail). This distinguishes it from generic siblings like search_pubmed/search_europepmc via the named source, though it doesn't explicitly call out those alternatives.
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 domain-specific query parameter ('condition/disease search string') implies when to use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs the many sibling search_* tools or any exclusion criteria. Usage must be inferred from the source name.
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.