Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
openpgx

openpgx

Official
by open-pgx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Full PGx Report

full_pgx_report
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a complete pharmacogenomic report covering all genes, phenotypes, and affected medication categories to guide personalized medication decisions.

Instructions

Generate a complete pharmacogenomic report with all your genes, phenotypes, and affected medication categories.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "full_pgx_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds context about report content (genes, phenotypes, medications) but no additional behavioral traits such as authentication needs or rate limits.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does. It could optionally elaborate on output format, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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?

The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given zero parameters; a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it generates a complete pharmacogenomic report covering genes, phenotypes, and medication categories. This verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'check_medication' or 'full_report'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for obtaining a comprehensive pharmacogenomic report, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'check_medication' for specific drugs) or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools