Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-clinical-doc-agent

mcp-clinical-doc-agent

by Aditya-Khadye
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

summarize_protocol

Extracts key elements from clinical trial protocols and returns a structured summary including phase, indication, endpoints, enrollment, and a concise narrative.

Instructions

Generate a structured summary of a single protocol.

Returns phase, indication, intervention, primary endpoint, planned enrollment,
adverse-event count, and a 3-4 sentence narrative. Uses Claude (Haiku) when
``ANTHROPIC_API_KEY`` is set; otherwise falls back to a deterministic template.

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": {
      "document_id": "<document_id>"
    },
    "name": "summarize_protocol"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
document_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses model selection behavior (uses Claude Haiku if key is set, else deterministic template), which is helpful. However, it lacks information on error handling for invalid document IDs.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description adequately covers output structure and model behavior. Minor gap: no discussion of edge cases or required dependencies.

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 schema has 0% description coverage on 'document_id', and the description does not elaborate on this parameter, leaving its type or format unclear.

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 clearly states 'Generate a structured summary of a single protocol' and lists specific outputs (phase, indication, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like cluster_adverse_events or list_documents.

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 description implies usage for summarizing a protocol but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or provide any exclusion criteria.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools