PocketScout MCP

Get Ligand History

GetLigandHistory

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a drug target's ChEMBL bioactivity landscape to assess tested compounds, potency, clinical progress, and competition, guiding whether to target known or novel binding sites.

Instructions

Retrieve the bioactivity landscape for a drug target from ChEMBL.

Shows what compounds have been tested, how potent the best ones are, whether any have reached clinical trials, and how crowded the competitive landscape is.

Use this to decide whether to target KNOWN binding sites (where SAR exists) or seek NOVEL sites (where de novo design has an advantage). A crowded landscape suggests new modalities or allosteric approaches; an untargeted landscape suggests opportunity but less prior validation.

Provide EITHER uniprot_id or pdb_id (UniProt preferred for accuracy).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pdb_id`	No
`uniprot_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the data reveals (SAR availability, clinical reach, landscape crowding), but discloses no auth needs, rate limits, or data-freshness caveats.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then progressively adds interpretation guidance and the parameter constraint. Well-sized and structured, though the middle interpretive paragraph is advisory rather than strictly operational and could be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are appropriately omitted, and the mutual-exclusion constraint on the two optional parameters is stated. For a two-parameter read tool this is close to complete; the only gap is that neither parameter is required despite the either/or instruction, which the agent must infer.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does the most important part: the two IDs are mutually exclusive alternatives ("Provide EITHER") with a stated preference (UniProt for accuracy). Neither the anyOf/null schema nor the 0% coverage conveys the either-or constraint or the accuracy tradeoff.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (bioactivity landscape for a drug target from ChEMBL) and enumerates what the result covers: compounds tested, potency, clinical progression, competitive density. It carves out a distinct domain relative to siblings like GetBindingSites and SearchTargetLiterature, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly frames the decision this tool supports (known vs novel binding sites, crowded vs untargeted landscape), which tells the agent when the tool is worth calling. It does not name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server