Skip to main content
Glama

compounds_get

Get one compound's UK legal status: whether it is licensed, in trials, cosmetic or unlicensed, the evidence and risks, and the licensed alternative. Returns sources and dates. No dosing is included, by design.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "compounds_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does useful work by declaring what is returned ('sources and dates') and a deliberate scope limit ('No dosing is included, by design'), but says nothing about behavior for an unknown or invalid slug (error vs empty result) or any auth/rate constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with the payload front-loaded and no filler. The negative constraint about dosing is placed last where it reads as a caveat rather than burying the purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the categories returned, that sources and dates accompany the answer, and what is deliberately excluded. The only real omission is slug provenance and invalid-input behavior, which is minor at this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'slug' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only implies the slug identifies 'one compound' and never states the format or that valid slugs come from compounds_list, leaving the agent to guess how to construct a valid call.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one compound's UK legal status') and then enumerates the exact status categories covered: licensed, in trials, cosmetic, unlicensed. This is clearly the single-compound reader versus the sibling compounds_list, so an agent can distinguish them without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The singular 'one compound' implies the lookup use case, but the description never names compounds_list as the alternative for browsing or how to obtain a valid slug first. Usage is inferable rather than stated, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources