Govparse Government Data Gateway

fda_feed_clearances

Which medical devices did the FDA just clear or approve, and who is the applicant? Bulk feed over openFDA 510(k) clearances and PMA approvals, newest-first by decision date — a new clearance is a device launch. Cursor-paginated up to 1000/page, filterable by applicant, state, product code, pathway (510k/pma), advisory committee, or since. Rows carry the applicant, device name, product code, advisory committee, pathway, and decision. Observational public records, never a recommendation. [price: $0.05/row]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Rows per page (default 500, cap 1000).
`since`	No	Only decisions dated on or after this date (YYYY-MM-DD).
`state`	No	Applicant state code(s), CSV.
`cursor`	No	Opaque page cursor — pass the previous page's next_cursor unchanged.
`pathway`	No	Regulatory pathway: 510k \| pma.
`applicant`	No	Applicant (manufacturer) name fragment.
`committee`	No	FDA advisory-committee / specialty panel fragment (Cardiovascular, Radiology...).
`product_code`	No	FDA product code (3-letter).

Schema Changelog

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

AddedJul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source (openFDA), ordering, pagination (cursor-based, up to 1000), filtering capabilities, and row contents. It also mentions pricing ($0.05/row) and that it is observational and not a recommendation. This provides good behavioral context beyond the schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing pagination, filtering, row content, and disclaimer. Each sentence adds value, though it is somewhat lengthy. It could be slightly more concise but remains effective.

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 8 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains the feed operation, pagination, filtering, and row contents. It mentions the data source and a disclaimer. It could improve by specifying the exact return format, but it is largely complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about cursor pagination and feed behavior but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema's descriptions (e.g., 'Rows per page (default 500, cap 1000).').

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 it provides a bulk feed of FDA 510(k) clearances and PMA approvals, ordered newest-first. It specifies the verb (feed/query), resource (devices cleared or approved), and distinguishes from sibling tools like fda_clearances_devices by emphasizing 'bulk feed' and 'cursor-paginated'.

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 implies usage for retrieving the latest clearances in bulk and mentions filtering options. It includes a caution about public records being non-recommendations. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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

All Govparse Government Data Gateway tools Inspect

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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct domain and specific action (e.g., FDA approvals vs clearances vs recalls; firmstanding business360 dossier vs search vs screen). Even overlapping concepts like 'business360' vs 'business360_lookup' are distinguished by input (UUID vs name+state). No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use a consistent lowercase snake_case pattern with domain prefix (e.g., fda_*, firmstanding_*, fmcsa_*, govcon_*). Action words (search, lookup, screen, feed, stats) follow predictable usage. The naming is uniform and easy to parse.

Tool Count4/5

38 tools is on the higher end but appropriate for a comprehensive government data gateway spanning multiple agencies and datasets. Each domain has a reasonable number of tools (e.g., FMCSA: 7, OFLC: 6). Could potentially be trimmed slightly, but overall well-scoped for the stated purpose.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the major government data sources comprehensively: FDA (approvals, clearances, recalls), FMCSA (carrier census, safety, insurance, etc.), FSIS, DOJ/OFLC, OSHA/EPA/DOL enforcement, SEC insider filings, clinical trials, VA facilities/opportunities/vendors, and federal contracting. No obvious gaps for the stated gateway purpose.

Resources

Need Help?