Get FDA drug recalls and adverse event reports from openFDA. Search 17,000+ recalls and 20M+ adverse events by drug name or company.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| drug | No | Drug name to search (e.g. aspirin, Tylenol) | |
| type | No | recalls (default) or adverse_events | recalls |
| limit | No | Number of results (max 25) | |
| company | No | Company/manufacturer name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the source (openFDA) implying public data, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no extraneous information. Efficient and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers inputs adequately but omits output format, pagination, or error behavior. It is adequate but could be improved for an agent to fully anticipate the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving example drug names ('aspirin, Tylenol') and the data scope (17k+ recalls, 20M+ events), which enriches understanding beyond schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves FDA drug recalls and adverse event reports from openFDA, specifying the resource and search options (drug name or company). The sibling tools are all financial/insider trading, so this tool is well-distinguished.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for FDA-related queries, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide when-not situations or prerequisites. The distinction from siblings is domain-based but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct SEC-related data (earnings, insider trades, material events, filings), but get_material_events and get_recent_filings both handle 8-K filings, creating minor overlap. The FDA data tool is wholly unrelated, increasing potential confusion about the server's scope.
All tool names follow a consistent 'get_{category}_data' or 'get_{entity}' pattern (e.g., get_earnings_data, get_insider_trades). The verb_noun structure is uniform and predictable, aiding agent selection.
With 5 tools, the count is reasonable, but the inclusion of get_fda_data (FDA, not SEC) makes the set feel scattershot rather than focused. The server title 'SEC Filings & Earnings' suggests a narrower scope, so the tool count includes an outlier.
For SEC filings, the server covers key types: XBRL earnings, insider trades (Form 4), material events (8-K), and a general filings search. Missing structured 10-K/10-Q data and filing text retrieval are minor gaps. The FDA tool is an unrelated addition, not a gap.