［台灣健康資訊］查詢台灣食藥署公告的藥品回收（品名、批號、回收分級、原因）。使用者問「這個藥有沒有被回收」時使用。
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": "health__get_drug_recalls"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | 最近幾天，預設 365（有關鍵字時查全部） | |
| level | No | 回收分級，例如 第一級 | |
| keyword | No | 藥名、成分或藥廠，例如 乙醯胺酚 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data source (TFDA announcements) and the categories of returned content, which is modestly useful, but says nothing about data freshness, retention window beyond the schema's days default, or result completeness. For a read-only lookup this is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two sentences: the first front-loads what is queried and what comes back, the second gives the usage trigger. No filler, nothing buried.
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 read-only, zero-required-parameter query tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives an agent enough to call it correctly. Remaining gaps (freshness/coverage window, no-result behavior) are minor.
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 100% — days' default and keyword behavior are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, only restating the fields returned.
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 a specific verb+resource: querying Taiwan FDA-announced drug recalls, and even enumerates the returned fields (品名、批號、回收分級、原因), which clearly separates it from the food-safety siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but the drug/recall scope is 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?
Gives an explicit trigger condition — use when the user asks whether a specific drug has been recalled. It provides no when-not guidance and does not point to alternatives such as health__check_product_safety or health__get_international_food_alerts for non-drug cases.
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.