A2A Peptides

Search Cleared Items

search_cleared_items

Presentations that passed the gate for a jurisdiction, pathway and actor class (a query by substance, brand or holder; optional banner filter on the shelf of record). Only cleared statuses are returned; every item carries its availability block (banners, pos_count, product_urls).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes
`banner`	No
`pathway`	No	licensed_medicine
`actor_class`	No	wholesale_distributor
`decision_id`	No
`jurisdiction`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 18, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / banner

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 18, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / actor_class / default

Previous value: -"wholesaler"New value: +"wholesale_distributor"

addedInput schema / properties / decision_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}

First observedSep 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that only cleared statuses are returned and that each item includes an availability block, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free, nor does it mention permissions or other behavioral constraints. For a search tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences and front-loads the core purpose before adding output details. Every clause adds value: it explains what is searched, the filters, and the guaranteed output fields. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for core usage but misses important details like the meaning of decision_id and the limit parameter. It also doesn't mention when to prefer this over related sibling tools. The output schema covers return structure, so that reduces the burden, but the description still leaves notable gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of query, jurisdiction, pathway, actor_class, and banner, which covers most core parameters. However, limit and decision_id are not described at all, leaving gaps for an agent trying to use the optional decision_id filter or understand pagination defaults.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool searches for presentations that passed the gate, scoped by jurisdiction, pathway, and actor class. It also describes the query types and optional banner filter, making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as get_availability or get_pathway_status, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of a sibling like get_availability, find_licensed_supplier, or get_pathway_status. It doesn't mention use cases, exclusions, or alternative conditions. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the name and description alone.

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

All A2A Peptides 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.