kegg-mcp-server

get_compound_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve detailed KEGG compound information by ID, choosing a compact summary or complete flat-file parse for pathway and bioinformatics analysis.

Instructions

Get detailed information for a KEGG compound entry.

Args: compound_id: KEGG compound ID (e.g. 'C00002' for ATP, 'C00031' for D-Glucose). detail_level: 'summary' (default, compact) or 'full' (complete flat-file parse).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`compound_id`	Yes
`detail_level`	No		summary

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.5.0Oct 23, 2026

addedOutput schema / $defs / EntrySummary / properties / symbol

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Symbol"
+}

removedOutput schema / $defs / ErrorResult

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Structured error returned by a tool when the KEGG API fails.\n\nA tool returns this instead of raising so the model can reason about\nthe failure and decide whether to retry, change inputs, or give up.\nA point lookup that receives a 404 uses code ``not_found``; an empty search\nremains a successful result with no items.",
-  "properties": {
-    "code": {
-      "default": "kegg_api_error",
-      "title": "Code",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "error": {
-      "title": "Error",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "hint": {
-      "anyOf": [
-        {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "null"
-        }
-      ],
-      "default": null,
-      "title": "Hint"
-    },
-    "path": {
-      "anyOf": [
-        {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "null"
-        }
-      ],
-      "default": null,
-      "title": "Path"
-    },
-    "retryable": {
-      "default": false,
-      "title": "Retryable",
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "status": {
-      "anyOf": [
-        {
-          "type": "integer"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "null"
-        }
-      ],
-      "default": null,
-      "title": "Status"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "error"
-  ],
-  "title": "ErrorResult",
-  "type": "object"
-}

addedOutput schema / $defs / Reference / properties / sequence

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Sequence"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / result / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "$ref": "#/$defs/CompoundInfo"
-  },
-  {
-    "$ref": "#/$defs/EntrySummary"
-  },
-  {
-    "$ref": "#/$defs/ErrorResult"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "$ref": "#/$defs/CompoundInfo"
+  },
+  {
+    "$ref": "#/$defs/EntrySummary"
+  }
+]

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that detail_level controls whether the response is a compact summary or a complete flat-file parse, but it does not describe error behavior or response size implications.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args block. Every line contributes useful information, though the formatting could be slightly tighter.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description does not need to explain return values in depth. It is complete enough for correct invocation: the agent knows the required identifier format and how detail_level changes output. Minor gaps remain around invalid-ID behavior and sibling routing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does. It documents both parameters, gives concrete examples for compound_id ('C00002' for ATP, 'C00031' for D-Glucose), and explains the meaning and default of detail_level.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information for a KEGG compound entry.' This clearly distinguishes it from search tools like search_compounds, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate it from sibling tools such as get_compound_reactions.

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 implies usage through the phrase 'detailed information,' but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. An agent must infer on its own when this tool is preferable to search_compounds or get_compound_reactions.

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