Retrieve detailed clinical trial information using an NCT ID, including core data, eligibility criteria, locations, and outcomes for biomedical research.
Get detailed trial information by NCT ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| nct_id | Yes | NCT ID (e.g., "NCT01234567") | |
| sections | No | Sections to include |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0-alpha.10Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.6.0-alpha.7Input schema / properties / nct_id / minLengthAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / nct_id / patternAdded value: +"^NCT\\d{8}$"v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: it does not say what 'detailed' means, that results can be scoped by the sections array, or how the limit parameter affects the response.
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 with no waste, but the terseness comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must convey what a 'detailed' result contains and how sections/limit shape it; it does neither. For a 3-parameter retrieval tool this leaves the agent guessing about response scope.
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 coverage is 67%; nct_id and sections have inline descriptions but limit has none. The description mentions only nct_id and ignores the sections parameter, which materially changes what comes back (core/eligibility/locations/outcomes/all) — the most important parameter to explain is left to the schema.
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 clear verb (Get) and resource (detailed trial information) plus the lookup key (NCT ID). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling trial_search, which is presumably the search-based counterpart, so it stops 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?
'by NCT ID' implies this is the keyed-lookup counterpart to trial_search, but the description never names the alternative or states when to prefer it. Usage is inferable rather than explicit, and no prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.