CDC MMWR Reports
Server Details
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports and disease surveillance
- 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.
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.8/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_disease_surveillance focuses on disease-specific data, get_recent_reports lists recent publications, get_report_detail provides detailed article metadata, and search_mmwr performs topic-based searches. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case naming (e.g., get_disease_surveillance, get_recent_reports). The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations in style or convention across the set.
With 4 tools, this server is well-scoped for accessing CDC MMWR reports. Each tool serves a specific, non-redundant function in the domain of retrieving and searching public health data, making the count appropriate and manageable.
The tool set covers core workflows for accessing MMWR data: searching, listing recent reports, getting detailed metadata, and retrieving disease-specific surveillance. A minor gap is the lack of tools for filtering or sorting results beyond basic limits, but agents can work around this effectively.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_disease_surveillanceAInspect
Get 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 |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Provides some context (searches recent articles, returns case counts) but lacks details on data freshness, coverage limitations, or error behaviors.
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 with purpose up front; Args section is clear though slightly redundant with schema structure.
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?
Adequate for a single-parameter tool; acknowledges output schema exists so doesn't over-describe return values.
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?
Compensates effectively for 0% schema coverage by providing concrete disease examples (measles, tuberculosis, etc.) clarifying expected input format.
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?
Clear specific action (get surveillance data) and resource (MMWR/CDC), implicitly distinguishes from general search_mmwr sibling by focusing on notifiable diseases.
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?
Lists use cases (tracking trends, outbreak reports) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to sibling alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_recent_reportsBInspect
Get 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 |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return contents (titles, dates, PubMed IDs) and limit constraints, but lacks info on rate limits, caching, or data freshness given no annotations exist.
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?
Front-loaded with purpose but includes filler adjectives ('timely, reliable, and authoritative'); the 'Args:' docstring format is slightly informal for MCP context.
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?
Adequate for a simple single-parameter tool; mentions key return fields despite existence of output schema, providing helpful context for agent decision-making.
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?
Compensates effectively for 0% schema description coverage by documenting the limit parameter's default (20) and maximum (50) values in the Args section.
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?
Clearly states it retrieves recent MMWR weekly reports from CDC and explains what MMWR is, distinguishing it from sibling surveillance/search tools via the 'recent' focus.
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 no guidance on when to use this versus search_mmwr or get_report_detail, leaving agents to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_report_detailAInspect
Get 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 |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return payload contents (abstract, authors, MeSH headings) beyond annotation availability; misses error states or rate limits but covers primary behavior.
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 with purpose upfront, followed by return details, usage guidelines, and parameter spec; Args section is slightly utilitarian but information-dense.
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?
Appropriate for a single-parameter retrieval tool; leverages existence of output schema while still enumerating key return fields for user clarity.
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?
Compensates for 0% schema description coverage by defining 'pmid' semantically ('PubMed ID of the MMWR article') and providing a concrete example ('38271059').
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?
Specific verb-resource pair ('Get the full abstract and metadata') and mechanism ('by PubMed ID'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling search/list tools.
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?
Explicitly states dependency on sibling tools: 'Use PMIDs from search_mmwr or get_recent_reports results,' establishing clear workflow context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_mmwrAInspect
Search 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 |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses data source (PubMed) but omits rate limits, auth requirements, or result characteristics given no annotations exist.
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 with front-loaded purpose and clear Args section, though 'Args:' labeling is slightly informal.
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?
Adequately complete for low complexity; output schema exists so return value explanation isn't required.
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?
Excellent compensation for 0% schema coverage with detailed descriptions, default/max values, and concrete query examples.
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?
Clearly states it searches MMWR articles via PubMed with specific resource identification, though sibling differentiation could be explicit.
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 positive use cases (CDC guidance, outbreak reports) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative comparisons to siblings.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!