Paw Multiverse pet food recalls

Read one recall record with all of its versions

get_recall_record

Return one entry from the record in full: what the authority published, the firm, the product, the reason given, the lot and best-before codes where they were published, and every dated version held, so that a change the authority made to its own notice is visible. Also returns whether the entry is still listed on the authority site or has been removed from it, and the date it was last seen. Identify the entry either by its id (the "source:key" string returned by the other tools) or by source and key separately.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_recall_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	The record id in the form source:key, for example us-fda-animal-recalls:2026-09-08-db4bc500.
`on`	No	Optional date, YYYY-MM-DD. Read the entry as it stood on that date rather than as it stands now.
`key`	No	The key within that register, if giving source and key separately.
`source`	No	The register slug, if giving source and key separately.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that all dated versions are returned so authority edits are visible, plus current listing status and last-seen date. It omits not-found behavior and any per-call cost or rate characteristics, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the outcome (one entry in full) followed by the field inventory and versioning rationale, so the agent learns the value early. The prose is dense and slightly overlong in its field enumeration, but no sentence is genuinely wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns – and it does, covering record contents, version history, and listing status with last-seen date. Missing only failure/not-found semantics and default behavior when neither id nor source+key is supplied despite zero required parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the point-in-time 'on' date and the source:key id format. The description only adds that the id is the 'source:key' string returned by the other tools, which is useful but marginal beyond the schema.

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 – return one full entry from the recall record – and enumerates what the entry contains (authority publication, firm, product, reason, lot and best-before codes, every dated version). This clearly sets it apart from listing/searching siblings without needing their schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: it explains that an entry can be identified by id or by source and key, but never says when to choose this over ask_recall_record or search_recalls, nor what to do if the id is unknown. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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

All Paw Multiverse pet food recalls tools Inspect

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

Need Help?