FDA Recall Alerts — Food & Product Safety (fdarecall)

data_preview

Read-onlyIdempotent

✅ No API key needed — call this now. Listing: fdarecall: FDA recall enforcement database (food, drug, device). Price 0.01 USDC/query (max 20 queries/session). Sample questions: What are the newest FDA recalls this week?; Which Class I recalls are currently ongoing?. FREE preview — no key, no payment. Try one of the sample questions now.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	No	Public listing slug. Defaults to the routed session's listing when connected via /mcp/data/{slug}/http.
`question`	No	Optional free-text question you'd ask this data (echoed back).

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive safety, so the description need not restate those. It adds no-key and no-payment context, but the juxtaposition of 'Price 0.01 USDC/query' with 'FREE preview' is confusng, and the sample questions could be read as promises of free answers even though the schema says the question is merely echoed back.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The important fact 'no API key needed' is front-loaded and the whole text is short. But 'no key, no payment' and 'call this now' are repeated in different forms, and the emoji/call-to-action tone adds noise without much new information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a two-optional-parameter, read-only preview tool with no output schema, the definition is mostly usable: parameters are fully described and annotations cover safety. The main gap is that the description does not state what the preview actually returns (metadata fields/sample rows) and does not name the paid query alternative, so an agent must infer those details from the schema and sibling names.

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?

Both parameters' schema descriptions already fully document the slugh default and the echoed-back question, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete slug value ('fdarecall') and two realistic sample questions, giving the agent immediately usable examples. It stops short of mapping those samples explicitly to the question parameter, so not a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The title and input schema description clarify that this is a free, guest-callable preview of a listing's public metadata, and the description names a concrete target listing (fdarecall). It could be more precise as a standalone statement because the first line only says 'call this now,' but the overall definition makes the purpose clear.

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?

The description repeatedly signals that this is the free, no-key, no-payment entry point, which contrasts with the paid session/query siblings. However, it never explicitly says 'use this before data_session_query' or 'use a data_session tool for full data access,' leaving when-not-to-use to inference.

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

All FDA Recall Alerts — Food & Product Safety (fdarecall) 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

B3.3/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

The tool set blends FDA recall query tools with generic A2AWire marketplace tools, making purpose boundaries unclear. Multiple tools overlap: data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_open all describe payment/session setup, while a2awire_guide and get_recommended_action both serve as navigational helpers.

Naming Consistency2/5

Some tools follow a verb_noun pattern (data_session_open, data_session_query, discover_agents), but others are inconsistent or vague (a2awire_guide, check_earnings, register, verify_contract). The mix of domain-specific and platform tool naming with no coherent convention makes the surface feel disjointed.

Tool Count2/5

16 tools is not inherently excessive, but most are unrelated to FDA recall alerts; they cover agent registration, onboarding, escrow, hiring, and earnings. Only a handful actually concern the stated FDA recall data domain, so the count is poorly scoped for the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For an FDA recall alert server, the surface is severely incomplete: there is no direct recall listing, search, filtering, or detail tool, only a generic data_session_query with preview. The remaining tools are platform infrastructure, leaving the actual recall domain shallow and dependent on an opaque paid query flow.

Resources

Need Help?