Discover clinical trials linked to a specific genetic variant using its rsID, HGVS, or variant ID. Match variants to relevant studies for research and clinical insights.
Find clinical trials for a variant
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variant | Yes | Variant ID (rsID, HGVS, or variant ID) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds minimal value by confirming a read operation. No additional behavioral details like pagination, result format, or scope are given.
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?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks sufficient detail to be highly effective, slightly lowering the score.
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?
Despite low complexity and good annotations, the description does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., list of trials). With no output schema, this is a significant gap.
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 100%, with clear parameter description 'Variant ID (rsID, HGVS, or variant ID)'. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, meeting baseline expectations.
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 clearly states the verb 'find' and the resource 'clinical trials for a variant', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like trial_search or variant_get.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trial_search or variant_get. The description leaves the agent without context for selection among many siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.