Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GLP Winner

by com.glpwinner
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get a compounding pharmacy’s profile

get_glp1_pharmacy
Read-onlyIdempotent

One compounding pharmacy from GLP Winner: whether it is licensed in the person’s state (licence number, expiry and the state board’s record when held), whether that licence covers sterile compounding, accreditations (503A, 503B, PCAB, ...), FDA inspection, the additives it compounds with, ratings, and the providers that ship from it to that state with Get Started links. Use for "is this pharmacy licensed / legit / sterile", "what does it add to the medication" and "who uses this pharmacy". Statuses of "not_checked" or "not_reviewed" mean unknown, never yes or no. Link each provider you name with its links.getStarted URL, copied exactly with its ?ref= part: it opens the provider’s intake with the coupon applied. Do not link links.learnMore, another GLP Winner page or the provider’s own website in its place.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pharmacy": "<pharmacy>"
    },
    "name": "get_glp1_pharmacy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stateNoThe person’s US state, as a two-letter code or name. The licence and sterile-compounding status are checked for this state, and the providers listed are the ones that ship from the pharmacy there.
pharmacyYesPharmacy name ("Hallandale"), slug ("hallandale") or numeric GLP Winner id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioural context beyond them: that "not_checked"/"not_reviewed" means unknown rather than negative, and that provider links must carry the exact `?ref=` referral suffix. It says nothing about what happens when the pharmacy is not found or when `state` is omitted.

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 first sentence is a long run-on inventory of return fields rather than a scannable list, which hurts front-loading. The closing link rules are operationally necessary but add length; nothing is plainly redundant, yet the structure could be tightened considerably.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so thoroughly, including entitlement/affiliate link handling. The main gap is the optional `state` parameter: it never states what the profile looks like without one, nor how a missing or ambiguous pharmacy is handled.

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 documented in the schema, including that `state` accepts a two-letter code or name and `pharmacy` accepts a name, slug or numeric id. The description reinforces that `state` drives which licence/sterile status and which shipping providers are returned, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 description names a specific resource (a single compounding pharmacy profile) and enumerates exactly what it returns: licence status and expiry, sterile-compounding coverage, accreditations, FDA inspection, additives, ratings and shipping providers. That makes it distinguishable from a search tool, but it never names the sibling lookup/search tools it competes with, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

It gives explicit use cases in quoted user-intent form: "is this pharmacy licensed / legit / sterile", "what does it add to the medication" and "who uses this pharmacy". There are no when-not-to-use conditions and no named alternative for bulk search, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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

All GLP Winner toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources