kegg-mcp-server

get_drug_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve detailed information for a KEGG drug entry by drug ID, with summary or full detail levels, to support drug research and analysis.

Instructions

Get detailed information for a KEGG drug entry.

Args: drug_id: KEGG drug ID (e.g. 'D00001' for aspirin, 'D00564' for ibuprofen). detail_level: 'summary' (default, compact) or 'full' (complete flat-file parse).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`drug_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/DrugInfo"
-  },
-  {
-    "$ref": "#/$defs/EntrySummary"
-  },
-  {
-    "$ref": "#/$defs/ErrorResult"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "$ref": "#/$defs/DrugInfo"
+  },
+  {
+    "$ref": "#/$defs/EntrySummary"
+  }
+]

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds the meaningful 'summary (compact) vs full (complete flat-file parse)' distinction and the cost implication of 'complete flat-file parse', but says nothing about behavior on an invalid ID or the shape of the response.

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?

Purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is compact with no wasted sentences. The nested indentation of the Args section is slightly awkward but does not cost clarity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted, and both parameters are explained. What is missing is the routing context — when to reach for this versus search_drugs or get_drug_interactions — which matters given roughly 30 sibling tools in this namespace.

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 carry the parameter burden, and it does: concrete example IDs ('D00001' aspirin, 'D00564' ibuprofen) and the semantic difference between 'summary' and 'full', the latter described as a complete flat-file parse. Only the invalid-ID/error behavior is left unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get detailed information for a KEGG drug entry'), which is distinct from the sibling get_drug_interactions and search_drugs by name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops short of 5.

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 — the reader must infer that this is the detail-fetch step after search_drugs returns a KEGG drug ID. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance nor mention of the sibling alternatives like get_drug_interactions or search_drugs.

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