get_company_historyEvery FDA warning letter, recall, approval, and 483 citation Argus HQ has recorded for a given company, by its Argus HQ company slug (e.g. "pfizer-inc").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Argus HQ company slug, e.g. "pfizer-inc" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, authentication, rate limits, data freshness). For a tool returning potentially large histories, this is a significant gap.
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?
Single sentence with no fluff. Efficiently communicates the essential information.
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?
No output schema, and the description does not explain the return format (e.g., list of objects, pagination). For a tool that returns multiple record types, this is insufficient for an agent to parse results.
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 covers the sole parameter with a description. The description simply restates the slug example, adding no extra meaning. Baseline score is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.
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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves the full FDA enforcement history (warning letters, recalls, approvals, 483s) for a company using a unique slug. Differentiates from sibling tools that are more specific (e.g., get_recall_by_lot) or broader search.
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?
Description implies the tool is for getting the complete history for a specific company. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear. Could be improved by stating when not to use (e.g., for single documents).
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.