Skip to main content
Glama
lzinga

US Government Open Data MCP

clinical_trials_search

Read-only

Search ClinicalTrials.gov for clinical trials by condition, drug, sponsor, status, phase, location, or free text. Filter by multiple criteria to find relevant studies.

Instructions

Search ClinicalTrials.gov for clinical trials by condition, drug/intervention, sponsor, status, phase, study type, location, title, or free text. Returns trial ID, title, status, phase, sponsor, conditions, enrollment, and hasResults flag. Use sponsor filter to track pharma company research (e.g. 'Pfizer', 'Moderna', 'NIH'). Use filter_advanced for Essie expressions like 'AREA[StartDate]RANGE[2024-01-01,MAX]'. Use agg_filters for shorthand filters: 'results:with', 'sex:f', 'healthy:y'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoFree-text search across all fields
conditionNoDisease or condition: 'lung cancer', 'diabetes', 'Alzheimer'
interventionNoDrug, device, or procedure: 'pembrolizumab', 'insulin'
sponsorNoSponsor/collaborator: 'Pfizer', 'NIH', 'Moderna'
titlesNoTitle/acronym search: 'KEYNOTE', 'SPRINT'
outcomesNoOutcome measure search: 'overall survival', 'HbA1c'
lead_sponsorNoLead sponsor name only (not collaborators): 'National Cancer Institute'
study_idNoStudy ID search: 'NCT04852770' or org study ID
locationNoLocation search: 'California', 'Germany', 'Mayo Clinic'
statusNoTrial status. Pipe-delimited for multiple: 'RECRUITING' (Currently recruiting participants), 'NOT_YET_RECRUITING' (Approved but not yet recruiting), 'ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING' (Ongoing but no longer recruiting), 'COMPLETED' (Trial has concluded), 'ENROLLING_BY_INVITATION' (Recruiting by invitation only), ... (14 total)
phaseNoTrial phase: 'EARLY_PHASE1' (Early Phase 1 (exploratory)), 'PHASE1' (Phase 1 (safety/dosage in small group)), 'PHASE2' (Phase 2 (efficacy/side effects in larger group)), 'PHASE3' (Phase 3 (large-scale efficacy confirmation)), 'PHASE4' (Phase 4 (post-market surveillance)), 'NA' (Not applicable (non-drug studies))
study_typeNoStudy type: 'INTERVENTIONAL' (Testing a drug, device, or procedure), 'OBSERVATIONAL' (Observing health outcomes without intervention), 'EXPANDED_ACCESS' (Making experimental treatment available outside trial)
filter_advancedNoEssie expression filter: 'AREA[MinimumAge]RANGE[MIN,18 years]'
agg_filtersNoAggregation filters: 'results:with,sex:f,healthy:y'
sortNoSort field: '@relevance', 'LastUpdatePostDate', 'EnrollmentCount:desc'
page_sizeNoResults per page (default 10, max 100)
page_tokenNoPagination token from previous response
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses it is a search operation returning specific fields, adding context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it omits behavioral details like pagination, rate limits, or handling of invalid inputs, so transparency is moderate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is five sentences, each with a distinct purpose: purpose, returned fields, sponsor usage, advanced filter, aggregation filter. No unnecessary words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (17 parameters, no output schema), the description covers basics but lacks details on pagination, sorting, results limits, and how to combine with other clinical trial tools. These gaps reduce completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for all 17 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds examples of advanced filter usage but mostly reinforces schema information, offering minimal additional semantic value.

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?

The description clearly states it searches ClinicalTrials.gov for clinical trials by various filters and lists returned fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like clinical_trials_by_location or clinical_trials_detail, leaving the agent to infer its role as the primary search tool.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides examples of using specific parameters (sponsor, filter_advanced, agg_filters) but does not guide when to use this tool over sibling tools or when to switch. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/lzinga/us-gov-open-data-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server