Get full details of a specific clinical trial by NCT ID. Returns title, summary, description, eligibility criteria, primary/secondary outcomes, sponsor, collaborators, locations, and results summary if available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nct_id | Yes | ClinicalTrials.gov NCT ID (e.g. "NCT03232697") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields and mentions 'if available', which is good. However, it does not mention error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a simple retrieval tool.
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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose directly, and the second enumerates return fields. No redundant or unnecessary information.
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 no output schema, the description lists the return fields comprehensively. It is almost complete for a single-item retrieval tool, though it could mention that the NCT ID must be valid and what happens if not found.
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 input schema already describes the nct_id parameter with a type string and example, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so 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?
Description clearly states 'Get full details of a specific clinical trial by NCT ID', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It lists the types of details returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_trials (searching) and get_trial_stats (statistics).
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 an NCT ID is available. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools, the context of siblings (search_trials, get_trial_stats) provides implicit guidance. Clear context but no exclusions.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: searching for trials, getting detailed info on a specific trial, and obtaining statistics. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_trial_details, get_trial_stats, search_trials.
Three tools is an appropriate scope for a clinical trials server, covering search, details, and statistics without being too few or too many.
The set covers the main operations: search, details, and statistics. However, some potential gaps exist, such as a tool to list all trials by sponsor or location, though search can approximate these.