Skip to main content
Glama

Get regulatory context

ingredients.regulatory
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return regulatory records and documented cautions for named ingredients, each carrying the class of record it actually is.

When to use: Use when you need to know what filings, advisories, label warnings, interactions, or enforcement actions FormulaSignal holds for an ingredient.

What it cannot provide: A regulatory filing is never returned as an approval, a warning, or a finding of harm. Nothing here is medical clearance.

Limits: Pass ingredient_ids (at most 5) or one product_id, not both. Your plan has a daily limit on how many distinct products, Signals and ingredients you may read. Repeating a question about the same product costs nothing extra; reading many different products costs one each. Do not iterate through products, aliases, or date windows to assemble a copy of the Record: it is refused, scored, and can suspend the key.

FormulaSignal covers a defined, counted set of U.S. pre-workout products. Coverage is not the whole category, and a product being absent from coverage says nothing about that product. Every response carries a status. supported means the Record answered. partial, stale, under_review, ambiguous and unsupported are all real answers about the Record and none of them is a fact about the product: report them as what FormulaSignal holds, never as what is true of the product. Read limitations and repeat what applies. An observation date is when a source was read, not when a change was made, and an observation window is not an exact reformulation date. Nothing here is medical advice or a suitability judgement for any person.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
product_idNoA canonical product id, to read the ingredients that product declares. Pass this or ingredient_ids, not both.
ingredient_idsNoUp to five canonical ingredient ids. Pass these or product_id, not both.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent only on a refusal: code, message, and what to do next.
watchNoThe bound account's watchlist or monitoring receipt.
ledgerNo
statusYesWhat kind of answer this is. Every value except `supported` is still a real answer about the Record rather than a fact about the product.
historyNoDated product states, oldest first.
productNoThe covered product the answer is about, when there is exactly one.
signalsNoApproved Signals: confirmed, reviewed changes.
summaryNoOne sentence saying what kind of answer this is.
coverageNo
productsNoCovered products named by the answer.
candidatesNoPresent when `status` is `ambiguous`. Pick one; never assume the first.
capabilityYesThe API capability that answered.
comparisonNo
confidenceNo
disclaimerNo
request_idYesQuote this if you contact support.
limitationsNoAlways present, including when empty. Read it and repeat what applies.
next_cursorNoPass back as `cursor` for the next page. Null on the last page.
calculationsNoDeterministic arithmetic FormulaSignal performed, with its operands.
record_as_ofNoThe Record's as-of date, YYYY-MM-DD.
record_versionNoThe Record data-state id. Two answers sharing it came from one committed state.
verified_factsNoWhat a captured source literally declares.
commercial_factsNoDated commercial observations, each with its price basis.
record_timestampNoThe newest dated observation the Record holds. Deliberately not "now".
research_contextNoDose ranges from the selected evidence set, with citations.
source_referencesNoCitations a reader can open: publisher, URL, observation date.
regulatory_recordsNoFilings and records, each labelled with the class of record it is.
documented_cautionsNoDocumented cautions, kept apart from filings.
methodology_versionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: status semantics (`supported`, `partial`, `stale`, etc.), the distinction between record status and product facts, coverage limitations, observation-date caveats, and even the anti-iteration/suspension policy. This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is long, but every section earns its place: use case, exclusions, limits, anti-abuse constraints, status meanings, and interpretation caveats. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear headings, making it navigable for an agent despite its length.

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 tool's sensitive regulatory domain, the description is unusually complete: invocation constraints, rate-limit behavior, status interpretation, coverage scope, and warning labels are all covered. An output schema exists, so detailed return-value documentation is not required here. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly seems missing.

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%, and both parameters are already documented with mutual-exclusivity and cardinality notes. The description reinforces 'at most 5' and 'not both,' but adds little semantic detail about the parameter values themselves beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Return regulatory records and documented cautions for named ingredients.' It also adds a crucial distinguishing detail, 'each carrying the class of record it actually is,' and the body names concrete content types (filings, advisories, label warnings, interactions, enforcement actions) that separate this from ingredient research or product lookup siblings.

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?

There is an explicit 'When to use' section with concrete conditions, and the description clearly states what the tool cannot provide (approval, medical clearance, suitability judgement). However, it never names a sibling tool as an alternative, so the guidance stops short of full when-vs-alternative routing.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources