Skip to main content
Glama

recall-risk

Server Details

Check a product's recall risk: score + active CPSC/FDA/NHTSA recalls for a product or brand.

Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

Full call logging

Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.

Tool access control

Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.

Managed credentials

Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.

Usage analytics

See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4.3/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The single tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct from anything else.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool uses a clear verb_noun pattern ('recall_risk'), which is consistent within its own context. No other naming conventions exist to cause inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

One tool feels thin for a server intended to provide recall-risk signals. While the domain is narrow, additional tools for managing tracked products or viewing historical data would likely be beneficial. The count is borderline.

Completeness3/5

The server covers the core query operation but lacks tools for managing tracked items (e.g., add/remove products) or accessing historical trends. This leaves notable gaps that could hinder automated workflows.

Available Tools

1 tool
recall_riskAInspect

Get the current complaint-velocity recall-risk signal for a tracked product/brand/model. Returns a 0-100 risk score, band, complaint velocity & acceleration, and severe-hazard share. This is a RISK SIGNAL from public complaint data, NOT an official recall or a claim the product is defective.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entityYesProduct/brand/model name or tracked id (e.g. 'Ford Mustang Mach-E', 'Dexcom G7', 'veh-tesla-modely-2023').
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explicitly states the data is a risk signal from public complaints and not an official recall, which is important for correct interpretation. It also lists output components. However, it does not mention auth requirements or rate limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource. No unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains what is returned and provides a necessary caveat about the data source. No gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by specifying the parameter can be a product/brand/model name or tracked id, with examples, making the parameter clearer beyond the schema.

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 the tool retrieves a recall-risk signal for a product/brand/model, using specific verbs and resource. No siblings to differentiate, but the purpose is distinct and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for tracked products but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. Since no siblings exist, the missing guidance is less critical but still absent.

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

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.

Resources