Skip to main content
Glama

Meridian Trace — Medical Device Registrations

get_market_coverage

THE cross-market question, answered in one call: every market where this manufacturer IS registered and every market where they are NOT. Returns per-market registration and active-registration counts and the source registries, plus the markets absent from their footprint — which is the gap a market-access team is usually looking for ("registered in Indonesia and Thailand, missing in the Philippines"). Prefer this over get_registrations when the question is about market presence rather than individual products. A marketAccess block may also appear. It is NOT a registration and is excluded from marketCount and every count in this response: it reports market access held on another basis — currently PMDA foreign manufacturer accreditation, which licenses a manufacturing SITE to make devices for Japan, precedes product approval and outlives individual products. When it is present alongside Japan in absent, both are true and the distinction matters: the company can supply the market but has no Japanese product approval visible to us. Do not describe that as being registered in Japan, and do not add it to a market count. A notJudged block lists markets that register only decree-listed categories (Chile): a company with no rows there is NOT missing there — most devices need no registration — so never report it as a gap.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoCompany name, as an alternative to manufacturer_id. Resolves the same way search_manufacturer does and uses the best match.
tickerNoListed ticker (e.g. "MDT"), as an alternative to manufacturer_id or name. Covers US-listed registrants; many large device makers are private or listed only outside the US and cannot be reached this way.
manufacturer_idNoThe Meridian Trace manufacturer _id, from search_manufacturer

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it explains that marketAccess is excluded from marketCount and every count, that PMDA accreditation does not mean Japanese registration, and that notJudged markets such as Chile must not be reported as gaps.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The answer is front-loaded with the core purpose, then layered with important caveats. It is longer than typical but most sentences carry interpretive value; some phrasing around marketAccess and notJudged could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description must explain the response shape and does: per-market counts, source registries, absent markets, marketAccess, and notJudged. An agent has enough context to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and their alternatives. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb-and-resource outcome: every market where a manufacturer is registered and every market where it is not, with per-market counts and source registries. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_registrations by framing the scope as market presence rather than individual products.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit routing guidance: prefer this over get_registrations when the question is about market presence rather than individual products. It also explains how to treat the marketAccess and notJudged blocks, which prevents common interpretive misuse.

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