Skip to main content
Glama
Augmented-Nature

Unofficial PubChem MCP Server

compare_activity_profiles

Analyze and compare bioactivity profiles across multiple chemical compounds using PubChem data to identify similarities and differences in biological effects.

Instructions

Compare bioactivity profiles across multiple compounds

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cidsYesArray of PubChem CIDs (2-50)
activity_typeNoSpecific activity type for comparison (optional)

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that executes the tool logic. Currently a placeholder returning a 'not yet implemented' message with input args.
    private async handleCompareActivityProfiles(args: any) {
      return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify({ message: 'Activity profile comparison not yet implemented', args }, null, 2) }] };
    }
  • Input schema definition for the tool, defining parameters: cids (array of numbers, 2-50) and optional activity_type (string).
      name: 'compare_activity_profiles',
      description: 'Compare bioactivity profiles across multiple compounds',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          cids: { type: 'array', items: { type: 'number' }, description: 'Array of PubChem CIDs (2-50)', minItems: 2, maxItems: 50 },
          activity_type: { type: 'string', description: 'Specific activity type for comparison (optional)' },
        },
        required: ['cids'],
      },
    },
  • src/index.ts:788-789 (registration)
    Registration in the switch statement that routes tool calls named 'compare_activity_profiles' to the corresponding handler.
    case 'compare_activity_profiles':
      return await this.handleCompareActivityProfiles(args);
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'compare' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits: what format the comparison output takes (e.g., similarity scores, visualizations), whether it's computationally intensive, if there are rate limits, or how it handles missing data. For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Compare bioactivity profiles across multiple compounds' directly states the core function. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (comparing multiple compounds' bioactivity profiles), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'bioactivity profile' includes, how comparison results are returned, or any limitations (e.g., data availability, computation time). For a tool that likely produces structured comparison data, this leaves too much undefined.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (cids as an array of PubChem CIDs with size constraints, activity_type as optional string). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain what 'bioactivity profiles' entail or how activity_type influences comparison. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Compare bioactivity profiles across multiple compounds' specifies the action (compare) and resource (bioactivity profiles). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_compound_bioactivities' (which retrieves rather than compares) and 'search_bioassays' (which searches rather than compares profiles). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the PubChem CID input, which could make it slightly less specific than a perfect 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_compound_bioactivities' (which retrieves bioactivity data) and 'search_bioassays' (which searches bioassays), there's no indication of when comparison is preferred over retrieval or search. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual boundaries are mentioned.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Augmented-Nature/Augmented-Nature-PubChem-MCP-Server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server