Get drug target and bioactivity data from ChEMBL (EMBL-EBI). Returns ChEMBL ID, max clinical phase, molecule type, molecular properties, and indication class.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Drug or compound name (e.g. ibuprofen, atorvastatin) | ibuprofen |
| type | No | molecule (default) or activity | molecule |
| chembl_id | No | ChEMBL ID for activity lookup (e.g. CHEMBL521) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the external source (ChEMBL) and return fields, but does not clarify operational details such as rate limits, error handling, or how the 'molecule' vs 'activity' modes alter behavior. Overall, it provides minimal insight beyond the function itself.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no redundant information. The listed return fields are useful and earn their place, making it appropriately succinct.
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?
In the absence of an output schema, the description partially compensates by listing return fields, but it doesn't explain how the optional parameters interact or describe any limitations. For a tool with multiple modes, this leaves some gaps in the context needed for effective use.
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?
The schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no new parameter semantics. It does not explain the interplay between 'name' and 'chembl_id' or the implications of 'type=activity', but the baseline is appropriate given strong schema coverage.
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 tool's function: fetching drug target and bioactivity data from ChEMBL, and enumerates the returned fields. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the specific data scope provides reasonable differentiation. Minor ambiguity remains around the term 'drug target' versus the listed properties.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over get_compound_data or get_drug_info, nor are any prerequisites or alternative workflows mentioned. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.
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.
Each tool queries a distinct public database (PubChem, OpenFDA, ChEMBL) and returns clearly non-overlapping data types: chemical properties, label/safety info, and target/bioactivity. Despite the shared drug/compound domain, the descriptions leave no ambiguity about which tool to use.
All tool names follow the exact pattern 'get_' + descriptive noun phrase (compound_data, drug_info, drug_targets), making the naming scheme highly predictable and consistent.
With only three tools, the server is minimal yet well-scoped for its purpose of retrieving drug/compound information from multiple sources. Each tool adds a distinct value and the count is within the ideal range for a focused server.
The server covers three major aspects of drug information: chemical identifiers, regulatory/safety data, and target/bioactivity. However, there is no search/discovery tool to locate drugs by query, and additional areas like clinical trials or pricing are missing. Still, the core lifecycle of drug data lookup is adequately covered.