Regulatory & Compliance Intelligence MCP
Server Details
Regulatory compliance, FDA recalls, federal register, enforcement actions & comment deadlines.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- FoundryNet/compliance-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- compliance-mcp
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 4.1/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
Most tools are clearly distinct, but daily_brief and daily_digest overlap in purpose, and compliance_alerts may duplicate some content from other tools. Descriptions help distinguish them, but an agent could still be confused about which to use for a daily summary.
All tool names use lower_snake_case and are descriptive. However, some are noun phrases (e.g., comment_deadlines) while others are verb-noun (e.g., recall_check), showing a slight inconsistency in pattern.
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for regulatory compliance intelligence. Each tool covers a distinct or complementary aspect, and the count is appropriate for the domain without being overwhelming or too sparse.
The set covers the main compliance monitoring needs: briefs, digests, alerts, deadlines, enforcement, recalls, and search. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for submitting comments or tracking specific regulations, but the core functionality is solid.
Available Tools
9 toolsbrief_summaryAInspect
Get the top 5 signals from today's brief as structured JSON — a cheap sample of the full daily_brief. Returns the day's highest-priority items (no prose) so an agent can decide whether to buy the full brief.
PAID: $0.50 (vs the full daily_brief price). Defaults to today (UTC). On a 402, settle the returned payment challenge and re-call with the SAME args plus payment_tx=. An Authorization: Bearer fnet_ key bypasses payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | brief date YYYY-MM-DD (default today, UTC). | |
| agent_id | No | stable id for your agent (scopes the free-tier counter). | |
| payment_tx | No | payment transaction reference, when re-calling after a 402. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries burden. Discloses cost ($0.50), default date, retry behavior on 402, and auth bypass with Bearer key. Lacks rate limits, but adequate for a paid sample.
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 payment and error details make it somewhat dense. Could be more structured or broken into sections.
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 output schema exists and complexity (payment, auth, errors), description covers return type, cost, defaults, retry, and auth. Lacks mention of output structure but schema covers that.
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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining date default (today UTC) and payment_tx retry logic, beyond schema descriptions.
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?
Description clearly states it gets top 5 signals from today's brief as structured JSON, a cheap sample of the full daily_brief. Distinguishes from sibling 'daily_brief' by noting it's a cheaper, smaller sample.
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 says use to decide whether to buy full brief. Provides context on payment, 402 handling, and auth bypass. Could state when not to use more directly, but sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
comment_deadlinesAInspect
Track upcoming public-comment deadlines for proposed rules from the Federal Register — what regulatory compliance and regulatory-affairs agents monitor constantly. Sorted by soonest deadline.
PAID: $0.01 per query after the daily free allowance (25/day). On a 402, settle the returned payment challenge and re-call with the SAME args plus payment_tx=. An Authorization: Bearer fnet_ key bypasses it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | stable id for your agent (scopes the free-tier counter). | |
| industry | No | optional industry filter. | |
| days_ahead | No | look-ahead window in days (1-365, default 30). | |
| payment_tx | No | payment transaction reference, when re-calling after a 402. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes sorting by soonest deadline and detailed payment handling for 402 challenges, compensating for missing annotations.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.
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?
With output schema present and moderate complexity, the description sufficiently covers purpose, audience, and special payment behavior.
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 covers 100% of parameters, but description adds value by explaining how payment_tx works in the 402 scenario.
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 the tool tracks upcoming public-comment deadlines for proposed rules from the Federal Register, distinguishing it from sibling tools like compliance_alerts.
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?
Implies use for regulatory monitoring but lacks explicit direction on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
compliance_alertsAInspect
Monitor active compliance alerts for an industry — action_required and critical items from the Federal Register, openFDA, and CPSC, sorted by deadline urgency for ongoing compliance monitoring. The premium tool: "what do I need to worry about in pharma this week?"
PAID: $0.01 per query after the daily free allowance (25/day). On a 402, settle the returned payment challenge and re-call with the SAME args plus payment_tx=. An Authorization: Bearer fnet_ key bypasses it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | stable id for your agent (scopes the free-tier counter). | |
| industry | Yes | e.g. "pharma", "finance", "food". | |
| severity | No | optional filter (else action_required + critical). | |
| payment_tx | No | payment transaction reference, when re-calling after a 402. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals data sources, sorting behavior, and payment/error handling. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but the monitoring purpose strongly implies no side effects. Rate limits are mentioned (daily free allowance).
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 well-structured: first paragraph explains purpose, second paragraph covers payment. Each sentence adds value, though payment details could be slightly more compact. The core purpose is front-loaded.
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 complexity (payment, multiple sources, sorting), the description covers key aspects. Output schema exists (not shown) so return values need not be detailed. Missing details about pagination or non-402 errors, but overall sufficient for an agent.
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% (all parameters described). The description adds value beyond schema by clarifying 'agent_id' scopes free-tier counter, 'industry' examples, and 'payment_tx' usage in 402 recovery. This elevates from the baseline of 3.
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 monitors active compliance alerts for an industry, listing specific sources (Federal Register, openFDA, CPSC) and sorting by deadline urgency. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on 'action_required and critical' items for ongoing monitoring.
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 explicit guidance on payment handling (free allowance, 402 error flow, alternative auth via Bearer key). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to siblings beyond the implied monitoring context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
daily_briefAInspect
Get the curated daily compliance brief — the day's most significant regulatory developments in one package: new final rules (Federal Register), open comment deadlines closing within 14 days, fresh recalls (openFDA & CPSC), and enforcement actions above $50K. Each brief carries a cryptographic provenance attestation so a buyer can verify it was produced by this server, unaltered.
PAID: $10 per brief. Defaults to today (UTC); a brief expires at the next midnight UTC. On a 402, settle the returned payment challenge and re-call with the SAME args plus payment_tx=. An Authorization: Bearer fnet_ key bypasses payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | brief date YYYY-MM-DD (default today, UTC). | |
| agent_id | No | stable id for your agent (scopes the free-tier counter). | |
| payment_tx | No | payment transaction reference, when re-calling after a 402. | |
| stripe_token | No | Stripe Checkout Session id (cs_…), when re-calling after paying the Stripe payment link (alternative to x402). Can also be supplied via the X-Stripe-Token header. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: paid tool, cryptographic provenance attestation, expiration at midnight UTC, and authentication bypass via Authorization header. It also details the payment flow (402 + payment_tx or stripe_token).
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: starts with purpose, lists contents, addresses payment and expiration, ends with error handling. Slightly long but each sentence adds value. Could be more concise, but still effective.
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 the tool's complexity (paid, payment flow, 4 parameters), the description is thorough. Output schema exists, so return value explanation is unnecessary. It covers behavioral, payment, and usage aspects completely.
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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds meaning beyond schema: explains date's default and UTC, agent_id scopes free-tier counter, payment_tx is for re-call after 402, stripe_token as alternative to x402. This clarifies the payment workflow.
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?
Description clearly states 'Get the curated daily compliance brief' and enumerates specific contents (new final rules, comment deadlines, recalls, enforcement actions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like brief_summary, comment_deadlines, etc., by specifying what this comprehensive brief includes.
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 clear context on payment ($10 per brief), default behavior (today UTC), expiration, and error handling (402 with payment re-call). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus siblings, though the broad scope implies it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
daily_digestBInspect
Monitor a structured daily regulatory digest — new rules, recalls, enforcement, and comment deadlines from the Federal Register, openFDA, and CPSC over the last ~2 days, organized by severity and type for compliance monitoring.
PAID: $0.02 per query after the daily free allowance (25/day). On a 402, settle the returned payment challenge and re-call with the SAME args plus payment_tx=. An Authorization: Bearer fnet_ key bypasses it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | stable id for your agent (scopes the free-tier counter). | |
| industry | No | optional industry filter. | |
| payment_tx | No | payment transaction reference, when re-calling after a 402. | |
| jurisdiction | No | federal | state | eu. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses payment behavior, re-call process, and data recency (~2 days). However, it doesn't mention rate limits beyond free allowance or what happens upon success (return format missing).
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 front-loaded with purpose but then includes a lengthy payment block that could be more concise. Every sentence is earned, but the structure could be improved for scanning.
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 the complexity of payment and re-call, the description covers the main flow but does not explain what the output looks like (though output schema exists). Missing details on error handling beyond 402.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining agent_id scopes free counter and payment_tx for re-call, but most parameter semantics are already in the schema.
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 monitors a structured daily regulatory digest covering new rules, recalls, enforcement, and comment deadlines from specific sources, organized by severity and type. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like 'compliance_alerts' or 'recall_check'.
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 provides detailed payment instructions (free allowance, re-call after 402) but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'brief_summary' or 'daily_brief'. No context for optimal use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
enforcement_actionsAInspect
Track regulatory enforcement actions (incl. OSHA citations and SEC enforcement) from the Federal Register, with parsed penalty amounts and context, filterable by agency, company, industry, or minimum penalty.
PAID: $0.01 per query after the daily free allowance (25/day). On a 402, settle the returned payment challenge and re-call with the SAME args plus payment_tx=. An Authorization: Bearer fnet_ key bypasses it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agency | No | enforcing agency, partial match. | |
| company | No | company name, partial match. | |
| agent_id | No | stable id for your agent (scopes the free-tier counter). | |
| industry | No | industry tag filter. | |
| payment_tx | No | payment transaction reference, when re-calling after a 402. | |
| min_penalty | No | minimum penalty amount (USD). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it's a paid tool with a free tier, returns a payment challenge on 402, and requires specific handling. This adds context beyond the input schema, though rate limits or data freshness are not mentioned.
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 well-structured into two clear paragraphs: first for purpose and filtering, second for payment and retry logic. It is concise without extraneous information, earning its place.
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 the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, filters, payment model, and 402 handling sufficiently for an agent to decide when to use this tool versus siblings.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the filter parameters (agency, company, industry, min_penalty) but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.
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 explicitly states it tracks regulatory enforcement actions from the Federal Register, listing examples like OSHA and SEC, and mentions filtering capabilities. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as compliance_alerts or search_regulations.
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 provides clear guidelines on payment model: daily free allowance, cost per query, and how to handle 402 responses by re-calling with payment_tx. It also mentions bypassing payment with an Authorization header. It does not explicitly compare to siblings but gives actionable usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
mint_infoAInspect
Get FoundryNet Data Network info for compliance monitoring agents. FREE.
Returns how to attest your agent's compliance/regulatory analysis for verifiable provenance, plus the sister data servers (gov-contracts, brand-intel, patent-intel, financial-signals, weather-intel).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behaviors. It only mentions 'FREE' (cost) and the return content, but fails to state read-only nature, auth requirements, or rate limits, leaving the agent without sufficient behavioral context.
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 short and front-loaded with the core action, but the second sentence is somewhat verbose and could be streamlined. Still, it avoids unnecessary elaboration.
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 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (implied), the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and output for a simple info retrieval tool, though behavioral gaps remain.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable as no parameters exist. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
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 retrieves 'FoundryNet Data Network info for compliance monitoring agents' and lists the specific outputs (attestation guidance and sister data servers), distinguishing it from sibling tools like compliance_alerts or enforcement_actions.
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?
It implies use for compliance monitoring agents but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_regulations or compliance_alerts, nor any conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
recall_checkAInspect
Check product and FDA recalls from openFDA (food/drug/device) and CPSC (consumer products), with affected products and severity (Class I / injuries → critical).
PAID: $0.01 per query after the daily free allowance (25/day). On a 402, settle the returned payment challenge and re-call with the SAME args plus payment_tx=. An Authorization: Bearer fnet_ key bypasses it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | No | recalling firm / manufacturer, partial match. | |
| product | No | product name/keyword. | |
| agent_id | No | stable id for your agent (scopes the free-tier counter). | |
| category | No | category keyword (food, toy, drug, etc.). | |
| days_back | No | only recalls in the last N days. | |
| payment_tx | No | payment transaction reference, when re-calling after a 402. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description covers payment behavior, daily limits, and severity flagging. Lacks rate limits but addresses key behavioral aspects.
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, front-loaded with purpose. Second sentence is dense but necessary. Could be slightly more terse, but overall efficient.
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?
Covers purpose, payment, severity, and retry logic. Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Completeness is adequate for complexity.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds little beyond schema except for payment_tx context. Parameters are well-documented in schema.
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?
Description clearly states it checks product and FDA recalls from openFDA and CPSC, with affected products and severity. Distinguishes from siblings like compliance_alerts and enforcement_actions by focus on recalls.
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 explicit guidance on payment, free allowance, and handling of 402 responses with retry instructions. Could mention when to use alternatives, but current guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_regulationsAInspect
Search regulatory updates and final rules from the Federal Register, openFDA, and CPSC by industry, agency, type, keyword, or severity — regulatory compliance and compliance monitoring intelligence, newest first.
PAID: $0.01 per query after a daily free allowance (25/day). On a 402, settle the returned payment challenge and re-call with the SAME args plus payment_tx=. agent_id scopes your allowance; an Authorization: Bearer fnet_ key bypasses it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | max rows (1-200, default 50). | |
| agency | No | issuing agency, partial match. | |
| keyword | No | free-text over title + summary. | |
| agent_id | No | stable id for your agent (scopes the free-tier counter). | |
| industry | No | one of healthcare, pharma, finance, manufacturing, food, consumer_products, energy, technology, construction, transportation, agriculture, defense. | |
| severity | No | info|warning|action_required|critical. | |
| days_back | No | only entries published in the last N days. | |
| payment_tx | No | payment transaction reference, when re-calling after a 402. | |
| regulation_type | No | final_rule|proposed_rule|notice|recall|enforcement|guidance|alert. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: data sources, sorting (newest first), payment model, error recovery, and authorization alternatives. No contradictions.
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 focused paragraphs: purpose then payment/usage details. No redundant sentences, every sentence earns its place.
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?
With 9 params (0 required), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers usage, pricing, error handling, and sources adequately. No gaps given the context.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minor context (e.g., 'free-text over title + summary' for keyword) but does not significantly enhance schema-provided meanings.
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 regulatory updates from Federal Register, openFDA, and CPSC with filters by industry, agency, type, keyword, or severity. Distinguishes from siblings like recall_check and enforcement_actions.
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 describes pricing (free allowance then $0.01/query), how to handle 402 errors (settle payment, re-call with payment_tx), and the role of agent_id for scoping the free tier. Provides clear when-to-use and workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$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!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.