Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports and disease surveillance
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
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.
Average 4.2/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
The four tools have distinct purposes: search_mmwr finds articles by topic, get_recent_reports lists latest reports, get_report_detail fetches a specific article's details, and get_disease_surveillance specializes in surveillance data for a disease. There is slight overlap between get_disease_surveillance and search_mmwr, but the descriptions clarify that the former is disease-specific and returns surveillance data.
The naming pattern is mostly consistent with get_ prefix for retrieval actions (get_recent_reports, get_report_detail, get_disease_surveillance) and search_mmwr for search. The suffixes vary (reports, detail, surveillance), which is acceptable but not perfectly uniform.
With only 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of providing MMWR report access. Each tool earns its place: search, recent list, detail retrieval, and disease-specific surveillance. No redundancy or excess.
The set covers the core workflow for MMWR reports: search, list recent, and get details. It also adds a specialized disease surveillance tool. A minor gap is the lack of full-text access, but abstract and metadata are sufficient for most use cases.
get_disease_surveillanceAInspectGet current surveillance data for a notifiable disease from MMWR/CDC.
Searches recent MMWR articles for surveillance reports and case counts
related to a specific notifiable disease. Useful for tracking disease
trends, outbreak reports, and current epidemiological data.
Args:
disease: Name of the disease (e.g. 'measles', 'tuberculosis',
'salmonella', 'pertussis', 'hepatitis A').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| disease | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'searches recent MMWR articles' and retrieves surveillance reports and case counts, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm safety, mention any limitations, or describe how the output is structured (though an output schema exists). This provides basic transparency but lacks richer behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, a brief elaboration on use cases, and a focused Args section. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics. It does not address edge cases or error conditions, but these are less critical for a straightforward read-only search tool, so the description is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero coverage for parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively with an Args section specifying that 'disease' is the name of the disease and providing concrete examples ('measles', 'tuberculosis', etc.). This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Disease' title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get current surveillance data for a notifiable disease from MMWR/CDC.' It goes on to explain that it searches MMWR articles for surveillance reports and case counts, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_recent_reports or search_mmwr by focusing specifically on disease surveillance data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Useful for tracking disease trends, outbreak reports, and current epidemiological data.' This implies the tool is appropriate for those scenarios, though it does not explicitly exclude other tools or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_recent_reportsAInspectGet recent MMWR weekly reports and recommendations from CDC.
Returns the most recent Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report articles
published by the CDC, including titles, publication dates, and PubMed IDs.
MMWR is the CDC's primary vehicle for scientific publication of timely,
reliable, and authoritative public health information.
Args:
limit: Maximum number of reports to return (default 20, max 50).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that it returns the most recent articles, including specific fields (titles, dates, PubMed IDs), and states a default/max limit. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, or any potential limitations about recency or availability. It is reasonably transparent for a simple read operation but lacks deeper context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. It opens with the action and resource, follows with return values, includes a brief background on MMWR (valuable context), and ends with parameter details. No unnecessary repetition or filler; every sentence contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return structure), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and parameter semantics. It could mention usage trade-offs with siblings, but that is covered in the usage guidelines dimension. Overall, the tool is well-specified for its purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only defines 'limit' with a default, but the description adds crucial semantics: 'Maximum number of reports to return (default 20, max 50).' This clarifies the meaning and constraints of the parameter, which the schema alone does not provide. Since there is only one parameter and it is fully explained, this is strong coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get recent MMWR weekly reports and recommendations from CDC.' It also specifies the output includes 'titles, publication dates, and PubMed IDs,' making the resource and action unambiguous. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_mmwr (search) and get_report_detail (single record detail).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that search_mmwr should be used for searching specific topics, or that get_report_detail is for fetching a single report's details. Usage context is only implicit in the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_report_detailAInspectGet the full abstract and metadata of an MMWR article by PubMed ID.
Returns the complete abstract, authors, publication date, volume/issue,
and any MeSH subject headings. Use PMIDs from search_mmwr or
get_recent_reports results.
Args:
pmid: PubMed ID of the MMWR article (e.g. '38271059').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pmid | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the return content (abstract, authors, date, volume/issue, MeSH headings), making the behavior transparent. It does not disclose error handling or rate limits, but these are not critical for a simple read-by-ID operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, a concise list of return fields, usage guidance, and a single-parameter Args block. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 1-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, how to use it, and where the input comes from. It does not need to explain return structure since the output schema exists, making this complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It provides an 'Args' section defining 'pmid' as 'PubMed ID of the MMWR article' with an example, adding valuable meaning beyond the bare schema type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: 'full abstract and metadata of an MMWR article by PubMed ID.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_mmwr or get_recent_reports, which focus on finding articles rather than retrieving details for a known PMID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use PMIDs from search_mmwr or get_recent_reports results,' providing clear context on when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical retrieval workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_mmwrAInspectSearch MMWR articles by topic via PubMed.
Searches the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report journal for articles
matching your query. Use for finding CDC guidance, outbreak reports,
surveillance summaries, and public health recommendations.
Args:
query: Search terms (e.g. 'COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness',
'influenza surveillance', 'measles outbreak 2024').
limit: Maximum number of results to return (default 20, max 100).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the PubMed source and gives example queries but does not mention read-only nature explicitly, rate limits, or other side effects. Adequate but could be richer.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured and mostly concise, but the first two sentences are slightly redundant ('Search MMWR articles by topic via PubMed' vs 'Searches the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report journal...'). Args section is clear and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool (2 params, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters adequately. It stops short of explaining result ordering or search semantics, but these are not critical given the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section fully explains both parameters with concrete examples (query) and constraints (limit default/max), going far beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verb+resource ('Search MMWR articles by topic via PubMed') and clarifies scope (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report journal). Differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on free-text query search rather than surveillance data or report retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context with 'Use for finding CDC guidance, outbreak reports, surveillance summaries, and public health recommendations.' Does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but clearly indicates this is for topic-based searching, distinguishing from siblings like get_recent_reports or get_report_detail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!