Almanac

- Searches the built-in library of clinical calculators, scores and medical equations (risk scores, severity scores, dosing/physiology formulas, decision rules) - Returns matching calculators with their slug, description, when-to-use note, and the full input contract (input ids, labels, units, allowed options) - Use it whenever a validated score/formula would answer the question better than mental math ("what is her CHA2DS2-VASc", "calculate the corrected sodium", "is this chest pain low risk") — then call use_calculator with the values you can source - Prefer this over computing scores yourself: the library implementation is validated

search_calculators

- Looks up a single drug, herbal, or dietary supplement in a reference database of drug-induced liver injury and returns its hepatotoxicity profile - Returns the likelihood score (A = well known cause of clinically apparent liver injury, through E = unlikely cause; E* = suspected but unproven), plus the pattern, mechanism, and management prose - The result is a source document with its link: cite it, with the link, for what you take from it - Use this when asked whether a specific agent causes liver injury, or about its DILI risk, pattern, onset, or management Usage notes: - Pass one agent per call (generic or brand name); for a class question, name the class (e.g. "Beta-Adrenergic Receptor Antagonists") or use drug_liver_toxicity_search - The likelihood score is a causality grade, not a probability — report the letter AND its meaning - The database is a reference, not patient-specific advice; it never replaces clinical judgment - The data comes from a public U.S. government resource. Cite it with its link, and never imply Almanac is affiliated with or endorsed by its publisher

drug_liver_toxicity_lookup

Recompute an Almanac calculator card from the values typed into it. Called by the card itself.

recalculate

- Runs a clinical calculator from the built-in library and returns its result and interpretation; where the host renders MCP Apps, it also shows the user an interactive calculator card they can adjust - Pass `values` for every input you can source from the conversation; ask the user for the rest. NEVER guess or invent clinical values - The tool_result gives you the computed result and interpretation — reason about it and weave it into your reply (with the key caveats), rather than reading the calculator back to the user - Get the slug and input contract from search_calculators first

use_calculator

- Searches a registry of clinical studies and returns matching trials: NCT ID, title, status, phase, sponsor, eligibility criteria, site locations with coordinates and per-site enrollment contacts, central contacts, and the study officials (PI) - Use it when the user asks about clinical trials for a condition, whether a patient might qualify for a trial, or what research is available near a place Search workflow: - Query with `condition` (+ `terms`/`intervention` to narrow). Keep queries clinical and specific. - Finding trials a patient could join: keep the default status (RECRUITING); add NOT_YET_RECRUITING only for soon-to-open studies. - When a place matters, pass `location` (latitude/longitude of the patient's CITY or the clinic — city-level only, never a street address) so results are limited to trials with a nearby site and sites return nearest-first with distances in miles. - The registry places every site at its CITY's center, so `distance_miles` is city-to-city: sites in one city share a distance. Say "about N miles", and never rank sites within a city by it. - Results are paginated: `next_page_token` in the result → pass back as `page_token` for more. Matching a patient to trials — be rigorous: - Search-mode eligibility text may be TRUNCATED. Before advising on fit for a specific trial, call this tool again with `nct_ids` (copied EXACTLY from the results — they are case-sensitive identifiers, never typed from memory) to read the full criteria. - Check the INCLUSION criteria against what you know of the patient (age, sex, diagnosis, stage, biomarkers, prior therapies, ECOG/functional status, labs) AND every EXCLUSION criterion (comorbidities, medications, prior treatments, organ function). One failed criterion rules a trial out. - Classify honestly: likely eligible / possibly eligible (list what you could not verify) / not eligible (name the failing criterion). NEVER present eligibility as certain — final screening is always done by the trial site. - Watch the two status levels: a RECRUITING trial can have individual sites that are not yet recruiting or closed — check the per-site `status` before pointing a patient at a location. - Note the phase and study type when discussing what participation would mean. - Give the NCT ID, the registry link, the nearest recruiting site, and who to contact about enrolling — prefer that site's own contact (name/phone/email), falling back to the central contact. - Trial statuses change; mention that the registry entry is the source of truth. - Trial data comes from a public registry. Cite the registry link with each trial, and never imply Almanac is affiliated with or endorsed by its publisher.

search_clinical_trials

- Searches a reference database of drug-induced liver injury for monographs relevant to a query and returns the top matches as source documents with their links - Use it for cross-cutting questions ("which antibiotics cause cholestatic injury?") rather than a single named agent — for one agent, prefer drug_liver_toxicity_lookup - Each result carries the agent's likelihood score and the relevant hepatotoxicity prose; cite the ones you rely on, with their links Usage notes: - Keep queries clinical and specific - Report each agent's likelihood grade AND its meaning; the database is a reference, not patient-specific advice - The data comes from a public U.S. government resource. Cite it with its link, and never imply Almanac is affiliated with or endorsed by its publisher

drug_liver_toxicity_search

- Searches the medical literature and returns the most relevant articles for a query - Use it to ground answers about treatments, guidelines, diagnostics, prognosis, and recent research in published evidence - Results come back as source documents (title, journal, date, abstract, link): read them and cite the articles you rely on, with their links - Results are ranked by keyword relevance, then by evidence level (systematic reviews and RCTs surface first) Usage notes: - This is a keyword search, not a question answerer: write the terms a paper would use ("apixaban warfarin atrial fibrillation chronic kidney disease", not "what's the best blood thinner for afib with bad kidneys") - Include synonyms and MeSH vocabulary for the key concepts ("myocardial infarction" as well as "heart attack"); articles are indexed with MeSH headings - Narrow with filters rather than extra words: publication_types for evidence strength, year_from/year_to for recency, mesh_terms for an exact MeSH heading - Search iteratively: when results are off-target, refine the keywords or filters and search again; issue separate searches for separate questions - Use today's date (in the conversation's context) when relevance depends on recency (e.g. "latest guidelines").

literature_search