Xynaptic Health Clinical Trials — worldwide clinical trials from ClinicalTrials.gov v2: search by condition, drug or sponsor. Status (recruiting?), phase, eligibility criteria, contacts. GET ?condition=diabetes (&drug=&status=recruiting&limit=5). [price: $0.020 per call, x402/USDC]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | No | query parameters |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / bodyRemoved value: -{
- "description": "JSON body for POST endpoints (e.g. insurance, ai-chat, production-risk)",
- "type": "object"
-}Input schema / properties / params / descriptionPrevious value: -"query parameters, e.g. {city: 'Paris', type: 'Appartement'}"New value: +"query parameters"Input schema / properties / params / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "condition": {
+ "description": "example: \"diabetes\"",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "trials": {
+ "description": "example: [{\"nct_id\":\"NCT01730534\",\"phase\":3,\"status\":\"completed\"}]",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose useful non-schema traits: the upstream source (ClinicalTrials.gov v2), the cost model ($0.020 per call) and payment rail (x402/USDC). It omits rate limits, pagination behavior, and result format, so it is not exhaustive.
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-loaded with the source and search facets, followed by the returned fields, a concrete GET example, and the price. Dense but nothing is wasted; the single run-on sentence is slightly less scannable than a structured list would be.
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?
With no output schema or annotations, the description still enumerates returned content (status, phase, eligibility criteria, contacts) and query mechanics, which is close to sufficient. Missing details on exact response shape and limits keep it from being fully self-contained.
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% but the documented params are thin (example strings only). The description meaningfully extends this by naming real query parameters (condition, drug, status, limit) and sample values, giving the agent more to work with than the schema alone.
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 (search) and resource (worldwide clinical trials from ClinicalTrials.gov v2) and names the searchable facets: condition, drug, sponsor. The domain is distinct from health-* siblings, though no sibling is explicitly named or excluded.
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?
Gives clear triggering context ('search by condition, drug or sponsor') and a concrete example query with optional filters (drug, status=recruiting, limit). No when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g. health-medical-literature) 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.