Skip to main content
Glama

howlong_timeline

Give the SmPC milestones for when a GLP-1/GIP injection starts working: when appetite drops, when the first full dose is, and how the effect builds. Returns dated-by-week milestones with their citation. Informational, no prediction for any one person.

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": {
      "drug": "<drug>"
    },
    "name": "howlong_timeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
drugYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape ('dated-by-week milestones with their citation') and an important scope limit ('no prediction for any one person'). It does not state the read-only/non-personalised nature as a hard constraint or mention the SmPC source drugs covered, but for a low-risk lookup this is solid coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and outputs, closing with the scope caveat. No filler or repeated information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully explains that dated milestones plus citations are returned. Given a one-parameter read-only lookup with no annotations, the only real gap is not stating which drugs are supported, which the enum covers anyway.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the single required parameter is a 4-value drug enum that the description never enumerates or explains. It does signal that the subject is a 'GLP-1/GIP injection', which maps loosely onto the drug parameter, but the four brand names must be read from the schema.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Give the SmPC milestones for when a GLP-1/GIP injection starts working') and enumerates the concrete outputs: appetite drop, first full dose, effect build-up. That makes it distinguishable from the sibling howlong_clearance, which covers a different time dimension.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool for onset/titration-timeline questions — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no sibling (e.g. howlong_clearance) is named as the alternative. The closing 'informational, no prediction' clause is a scope caveat rather than routing guidance.

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