Retrieve detailed chemical compound information by PubChem CID. Returns JSON with molecular formula, SMILES, and properties for research and analysis.
Get detailed information about a compound by PubChem CID.
Args: cid: PubChem Compound ID
Returns: JSON with compound details including formula, SMILES, properties
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cid | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / cid / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "integer"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / cid / maxLengthAdded value: +20Input schema / properties / cid / minLengthAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / cid / patternAdded value: +"^[1-9][0-9]{0,19}$"Input schema / properties / cid / typeAdded value: +"string"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "get_compound_detailsOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.5.16Does 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 value by stating the return payload contents (formula, SMILES, properties), but says nothing about error behavior for invalid CIDs or rate limits on the external PubChem service.
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?
Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by short Args/Returns blocks. No filler, though the Args/Returns labels are slightly heavy for a single-parameter tool.
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?
For a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough: purpose, the parameter's meaning, and the shape of the return. The missing piece is routing guidance relative to search_compound.
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 carry the load. It expands 'cid' into 'PubChem Compound ID', which is more than the bare string-typed schema property, but it omits the numeric-string format constraint captured only by the schema pattern.
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 ('Get detailed information about a compound') and names the identifying key (PubChem CID). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_compound, but an agent can still tell what this tool does from the name and description alone.
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 use this over search_compound or get_compound_literature, nor any prerequisite or CID-acquisition note (e.g., you must first call search_compound). The agent is left to infer the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.