Retrieve clinical trial details by NCT ID—summary, eligibility criteria, primary outcomes, enrollment, sponsor, and status—to support research or patient matching.
Full details of one clinical trial by NCT id: summary, eligibility criteria, primary outcomes, enrollment, sponsor and status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nct_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It makes clear this is a read of a single trial's full record and scopes what is included (summary, eligibility, outcomes, enrollment, sponsor, status), but says nothing about behavior on an unknown/invalid NCT id, rate limits, or whether records are cached.
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 that puts the verb and identifier first, then the payload. The field list is slightly redundant with the output schema but aids quick scanning without bloat.
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 not be spelled out, and the description still signals scope. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed.
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?
There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'By NCT id' does tell the agent the identifier type (an NCT registry id, not a title or numeric key), but it gives no format example (e.g., NCT01234567) or normalization/case guidance.
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 ('Full details of one clinical trial by NCT id') and enumerates the content returned, which makes it clearly distinct from the sibling search_trials in intent (single-record retrieval vs. discovery). It never names the sibling or explains the relationship, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
The phrase 'by NCT id' implies the precondition that the caller already has a known identifier, which suggests the search_trials-then-get_trial workflow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so an agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.