Skip to main content
Glama

Fda Devices

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Discover Tools

discover_tools
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find tools by describing the data or task. Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for: SEC filings, financials, revenue, profit, FDA drugs, adverse events, FRED economic data, Census demographics, BLS jobs/unemployment/inflation, ATTOM real estate, ClinicalTrials, USPTO patents, weather, news, crypto, stocks. Returns the top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples) — each result is ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed. Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoAlias for query.
taskNoAlias for query.
limitNoMaximum number of tools to return (default 20, max 50)
queryYesNatural language description of what you want to do (e.g., "analyze housing market trends", "look up FDA drug approvals", "find trade data between countries"). Accepts task, q, description, search as aliases.
searchNoAlias for query.
descriptionNoAlias for query.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds that the tool returns 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples) — each result is ready to call directly.' This explains output format and readiness, adding value beyond annotations. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences: first states purpose with domain examples, second explains output and usage timing. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and front-loaded with key information. It's well-structured and concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of schema coverage (100%), the description covers what it returns (names, descriptions, schemas, examples) and that results are callable. No output schema exists, but the description explains output adequately. It does not mention pagination or error handling, but it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with explicit descriptions for each parameter. The description mentions aliases (q, task, search, description) and the limit parameter, but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It provides a comprehensive list of domains (SEC filings, FDA, etc.) and distinguishes this tool from siblings by explaining it returns tool schemas ready to call. The verb 'discover' is specific to browsing/searching, which sets it apart clearly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available.' It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context implies it's for tool discovery only. No alternatives are named, but the tool is meta, so the guidance is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Fda Devices toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The FDA-specific tools are distinct, but they are mixed with many generic Pipeworx tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx variants, deep_research, entity_profile) that have overlapping purposes. This creates significant ambiguity for an agent trying to choose the right tool for FDA-related queries.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow two inconsistent patterns: FDA tools use 'fda_device_*' (consistent), while generic tools use various patterns like 'ask_pipeworx', 'deep_research', 'remember', etc. The mix of snake_case, camelCase, and descriptive phrases lacks coherence.

Tool Count2/5

With 37 tools, the count is high for what is intended as an FDA devices server. Only 6 tools are directly FDA-related; the rest are generic and dilute the purpose. The scope is mismatched, making the tool count inappropriate.

Completeness3/5

The FDA tools cover key areas: 510k search, adverse events, PMA, recalls, company profiles. However, the server is incomplete for its name because it lacks many tools that a comprehensive FDA devices server would have, and the generic tools don't fill those gaps.

Resources