opsin_convert_nameConvert a systematic IUPAC name to SMILES, InChIKey, or InChI. Use this tool to obtain machine-readable chemical identifiers from names.
Convert a systematic name using OPSIN
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Systematic IUPAC name | |
| output_format | Yes | Desired representation |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| outputFormat | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens with unparseable names, whether the call is deterministic for ambiguous names, or any error behavior of the external OPSIN engine.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely efficient communication. Acceptable but minimal.
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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a conversion tool dependent on an external parser, the description omits any note on input validity or failure modes, leaving the definition only minimally complete.
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 100%, documenting 'name' as a systematic IUPAC name and 'output_format' with an enum of smiles/inchikey/inchi. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource: converting a systematic (IUPAC) name, and names the underlying engine (OPSIN). An agent can tell it produces a structural representation from a name, though the description does not distinguish it from siblings like resolve_chemical_identifier or indigo_convert_molfile.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over resolve_chemical_identifier or indigo_convert_molfile, nor on prerequisites or valid input conditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.