Skip to main content
Glama

Fda Devices

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Fda Device Classification

fda_device_classification
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up FDA device classification and regulatory context by product code, device name, or regulation number. Classification describes the product-code category, not a specific product’s clearance or approval.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoRows (1-100, default 20).
deviceNo
product_codeNo
regulation_numberNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
totalYes
sourceYes
returnedYes
classificationsYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: classification is for the category, not specific product clearance/approval, which is beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant words. Front-loaded with action and resource, followed by a critical caveat. Efficient and well-structured.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not cover return values. It sufficiently explains the tool's purpose, scope, and search criteria, providing complete context for a read-only lookup tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With only 25% schema coverage, the description compensates by listing the three main search parameters (product code, device name, regulation number) and their roles. It does not detail the limit parameter, but the schema already describes it.

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 verb 'Look up' and resource 'FDA device classification', with specific search criteria (product code, device name, regulation number). It distinguishes from siblings by clarifying that it describes the product-code category, not a specific product's clearance or approval.

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 specifies when to use (look up classification by given criteria) and implicitly differentiates from sibling tools for specific searches like 510k or PMA. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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