[Premium Data] Search FDA product recalls, safety alerts, and enforcement actions across drugs, food, and devices. Args: search_term: Product, drug, or company name category: Category: drug, food, device, or all severity: Classification: Class I, Class II, or Class III max_results: Max results (default 20)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | all | |
| severity | No | ||
| max_results | No | ||
| search_term | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and open-world. The description adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, such as pagination, rate limits, result format, or data freshness. For a search tool, additional transparency about output structure or limitations would be helpful.
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: a single sentence for purpose followed by a list of parameters. It avoids unnecessary words. However, the parameter explanations could be formatted as a bullet list for better readability, and the opening tag '[Premium Data]' is somewhat extraneous but not harmful.
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 no output schema, the description explains inputs well but does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a search tool, knowing the output structure (e.g., list of recalls with fields) is important for downstream processing. The tool is minimally viable but incomplete for complex use cases.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's intent: search_term as product/drug/company name, category as drug/food/device/all, severity as Class I/II/III, and max_results with default. This adds meaning beyond the schema structure, though severity and category could benefit from listing valid values explicitly.
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 searches FDA recalls, safety alerts, and enforcement actions across drugs, food, and devices. It distinguishes itself from numerous sibling search tools by specifying a unique domain (FDA recalls) and scope, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 lists parameters but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling search tools, the lack of usage context (e.g., 'Use for FDA recall data only') leaves the agent to infer applicability. The parameter descriptions are clear but not sufficient as usage guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have overlapping functionality across categories (e.g., multiple search_arxiv, search_google_scholar, real estate tools, DNS/WHOIS checks). An agent would struggle to differentiate between similar tools from different categories, leading to ambiguity.
Tools follow a 'category__verb_noun' pattern mostly, but verbs vary (get, search, screen, check, etc.) and some categories use different orders (e.g., 'get_repo_stats' vs 'search_repos'). The consistency is acceptable but not uniform across the entire set.
With 152 tools, the server is excessively large for a single MCP server. While it aims to be an all-in-one gateway, the sheer number overwhelms the agent and likely exceeds practical limits for coherent selection.
The server covers a wide range of domains (finance, real estate, news, developer tools, etc.) but has notable gaps (e.g., social media APIs, CRM tools). Coverage is broad but not exhaustive, and some niche areas (e.g., global stock exchanges) are over-represented.