Maps a chemical by CAS number or name to related Adverse Outcome Pathways using AOP-DB and CompTox, helping researchers identify toxicity pathways and support scientific review.
Map a chemical to related AOPs using AOP-DB and CompTox.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cas | No | ||
| name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the data sources and nothing about auth, rate limits, or result behavior, so it contributes little beyond structured fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation. However, for a tool with two optional, undocumented parameters and silent routing against several sibling tools, the description is too thin to let an agent invoke it correctly without guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and both parameters (cas, name) are undocumented in the schema. The description never mentions either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap and gives no hint whether cas, name, or both are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (map) and resource (chemical to related AOPs), and names the sources (AOP-DB, CompTox). It is distinguishable from the sibling map_assay_to_aops by resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_related_aops.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. With siblings like get_related_aops and map_assay_to_aops in the same namespace, the agent gets no help choosing between them; usage is only inferable from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.