Skip to main content
Glama

Fda Devices

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Fda Device Product Code Profile

fda_device_product_code_profile
Read-onlyIdempotent

Build a bounded cross-dataset snapshot for one FDA product code: classification, recent 510(k)s, PMAs, recalls, and MAUDE reports. Dataset counts have different meanings; MAUDE counts are not event rates.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
product_codeYes
limit_per_datasetNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
recallsYes
product_codeYes
maude_reportsYes
pma_decisionsYes
interpretationYes
classificationsYes
clearances_510kYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc. Description adds valuable caveat: 'MAUDE counts are not event rates', and notes dataset counts have different meanings. Complements annotations well.

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 concise sentences: first defines purpose and contents, second adds essential warning. No superfluous text; front-loaded with key information.

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 output schema exists, description is largely complete for a read-only snapshot tool. Covers core function and a key caveat, though could mention how results are combined.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description mentions 'one FDA product code' for product_code and 'bounded' for limit_per_dataset. Partially compensates but does not fully explain limit_per_dataset's role or format.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Build' and resource 'bounded cross-dataset snapshot for one FDA product code', listing included datasets. Distinguishes from sibling tools focused on single datasets.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implicitly indicates use for cross-dataset overview but lacks explicit when/when-not or alternatives. Context shows many siblings, but description does not guide selection.

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