Find clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov by keyword, and filter by recruitment status such as RECRUITING, COMPLETED or TERMINATED to locate relevant studies.
Search ClinicalTrials.gov. status is e.g. RECRUITING, COMPLETED or TERMINATED.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| status | No |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – no note on rate limits, coverage scope, or result freshness – so it contributes little beyond the structured annotations.
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?
Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though the brevity is partly the cause of the missing parameter guidance.
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 described, and the tool is conceptually simple. Still, for a 0%-coverage schema the description should explain what `query` matches against and how `limit` interacts with results, which it omits.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: it gives examples for `status` (RECRUITING, COMPLETED, TERMINATED) but says nothing about what `query` accepts (keyword, condition, drug?) or how `limit` behaves. Two of three parameters remain unspecified.
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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Search ClinicalTrials.gov'), and naming the source registry implicitly separates it from sibling search tools like search_pubmed and search_literature. It does not explicitly state how it differs from those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
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 search_pubmed, search_literature, or the other siblings. The only usage-adjacent content is example status values, which is parameter detail rather than when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.