Regulatory & Compliance Intelligence MCP
Server Details
Regulatory compliance, FDA recalls, federal register, enforcement actions & comment deadlines.
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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 4/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
Tools like daily_brief, daily_digest, and brief_summary overlap in providing daily regulatory summaries, which could confuse an agent. However, descriptions differentiate them by price, scope, and structure, reducing ambiguity.
All tool names use snake_case and are mostly noun+noun or adjective+noun, with an exception like search_regulations (verb+noun). The pattern is largely consistent and readable.
Nine tools cover the core compliance monitoring needs—daily briefs, deadlines, alerts, enforcement, recalls, and search—without excess. Each tool serves a distinct function.
The tool surface covers major regulatory workflows, but lacks depth features like retrieving full regulation text or historical analysis. Minor gaps exist but don't significantly impair agents.
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 USDC (vs the full daily_brief price). Defaults to today (UTC). On a 402, pay the returned Solana memo 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 | Solana tx signature, 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 pricing ($0.50 USDC), default date, payment retry flow on 402, and optional auth bypass. Does not mention rate limits but free-tier counter hints at it.
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?
Four sentences, each earned: purpose, value proposition, pricing and payment flow, optional auth. No fluff.
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, description need not explain return format. Covers all critical aspects: what it does, payment, retry, auth, default behavior. Complete for a paid preview tool.
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?
100% schema coverage but description adds meaning: date defaults to today UTC, agent_id scopes free-tier counter, payment_tx for retry after 402. Explains payment flow beyond 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?
Clearly states it gets top 5 signals from today's brief as structured JSON, a cheap sample of daily_brief. Distinguishes from sibling daily_brief by being a preview.
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 when to use: to decide whether to buy the full brief. Implicitly contrasts with daily_brief. Could more explicitly say 'not for full brief' but overall clear.
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 USDC per query after the daily free allowance (25/day). On a 402, pay the returned Solana memo 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 | Solana tx signature, 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 discloses payment cost, free allowance, and re-call procedure for 402. However, it does not discuss rate limits, data freshness, or behavior when no deadlines exist.
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 three concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose, then adding sorting and payment info with 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?
Given the complexity of a paid API with re-call flow, the description covers main points well. It mentions sorting but not output schema details (which exists). Overall adequate.
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 value by explaining how payment_tx works and that agent_id scopes free-tier counter, reinforcing and supplementing 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?
The description clearly states the tool tracks public-comment deadlines for proposed rules from the Federal Register, and specifies sorting by soonest deadline. It distinguishes from sibling tools like compliance_alerts 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?
The description mentions that regulatory-compliance agents monitor deadlines constantly, and provides detailed payment instructions for paid queries. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
compliance_alertsBInspect
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 USDC per query after the daily free allowance (25/day). On a 402, pay the returned Solana memo 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 | Solana tx signature, 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 are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool is paid ($0.01 USDC per query after daily free allowance) and describes the payment flow (402, re-call with payment_tx) and authentication bypass. However, it does not specify data freshness, rate limits, or consequences of payment failure, which are relevant for a paid tool.
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 with two paragraphs: the first states the purpose clearly, and the second covers payment details. Every sentence provides necessary information. The payment instructions are detailed but front-loaded. No fluff or repetition. Could be slightly more structured, 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?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description need not explain return values. It covers the basic purpose and payment flow. However, it does not relate to sibling tools or clarify typical use cases (e.g., daily monitoring vs. ad-hoc checks). The completeness is adequate but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent on relative usage.
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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds some context by providing an example industry ('pharma') and clarifying that severity defaults to action_required + critical. However, it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's descriptions for agent_id or payment_tx. Thus it meets the baseline.
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, specifying sources (Federal Register, openFDA, CPSC) and sorting by deadline urgency. The tagline 'what do I need to worry about in pharma this week?' reinforces the purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like enforcement_actions or recall_check, though the focus on 'alerts' is implied.
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 implies usage for ongoing compliance monitoring and mentions payment requirements, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., daily_brief, daily_digest). No when-not or alternative suggestions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and 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 MINT provenance attestation so a buyer can verify it was produced by this server, unaltered.
PAID: $10 USDC per brief. Defaults to today (UTC); a brief expires at the next midnight UTC. On a 402, pay the returned Solana memo 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 | Solana tx signature, 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, the description carries full burden. It discloses payment flow, expiry, provenance attestation, and the ability to bypass payment with a special key. Absence of rate limit info is minor given the read-only nature.
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 verbose (multiple paragraphs) but information-dense. It is well-structured with a clear front-load of purpose and contents, followed by payment details. Some redundancy exists (e.g., default date mentioned twice).
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 (paid tool, multiple params, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what's included, payment instructions, alternative authorization, defaults, expiry, and provenance. It is fully self-contained.
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 value beyond schema by explaining payment_tx and stripe_token in context of the payment flow, and agent_id scopes free-tier counter, which is not in 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?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'curated daily compliance brief.' It enumerates the specific contents (new final rules, comment deadlines, recalls, enforcement actions) which differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects.
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 detailed usage context: payment requirement ($10 USDC), default to today's date, expiry at midnight UTC, and explicit steps for handling 402 errors including alternative Authorization header. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like compliance_alerts or daily_digest.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
daily_digestAInspect
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 USDC per query after the daily free allowance (25/day). On a 402, pay the returned Solana memo 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 | Solana tx signature, 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?
No annotations provided, but description discloses payment model, 402 handling, data sources, and time range. Does not mention rate limits beyond daily allowance, but overall transparent for a read-only tool.
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 paragraphs: first states purpose, second explains payment. Front-loaded and efficient. Could slightly reduce payment detail length but still concise.
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 core functionality, payment caveat, and data sources. With output schema present and only optional parameters, description is sufficiently complete for agent understanding.
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% and parameter descriptions in schema are clear. The description adds no new semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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?
Description clearly states 'Monitor a structured daily regulatory digest' with specific content sources and time range. Distinguishes from siblings like comment_deadlines and enforcement_actions by aggregating multiple types.
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?
Description implies usage for daily compliance monitoring but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like compliance_alerts or search_regulations. No exclusions or when-not advice.
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 USDC per query after the daily free allowance (25/day). On a 402, pay the returned Solana memo 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 | Solana tx signature, 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 carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the paid nature ($0.01 per query after 25/day free), the 402 error handling procedure with Solana memo, and the bypass option with an Authorization header. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or additional rate limits, but the essential behavioral traits for usage are covered.
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: two short paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, followed by filtering details. The second paragraph efficiently explains the payment model and error handling. No wasted words or redundant information.
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 has 6 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main context: purpose, filtering options, and payment mechanism. It sufficiently informs the agent about what the tool does and how to use it. The absence of explicit return value details is acceptable because an output schema exists.
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 reiterates the filterable parameters (agency, company, industry, min_penalty) and adds context for payment_tx usage. It does not significantly add meaning beyond the existing schema descriptions, so a score of 3 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's purpose: tracking regulatory enforcement actions from the Federal Register, with specific examples (OSHA, SEC) and parsed penalty amounts. This distinguishes it from siblings like compliance_alerts or daily_brief by specifying the source and focus on enforcement with penalty parsing.
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 explains filtering capabilities and the payment model, including free allowance and 402 handling. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., compliance_alerts, search_regulations) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.
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 + MINT Protocol details for compliance monitoring agents. FREE.
Returns how to attest your agent's compliance/regulatory analysis with MINT Protocol for verifiable on-chain proof, the MINT MCP endpoint, and 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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool is 'FREE' and returns information, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as being read-only, requiring authentication, or having rate limits.
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 with two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose. The 'FREE' mention is somewhat redundant but not overly verbose.
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 absence of parameters and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool returns. However, it could mention any required credentials or that no input is needed.
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?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds significant value by explaining what the tool returns (MINT protocol details, endpoint, sister servers), which is beyond the empty 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 returns FoundryNet Data Network info and MINT Protocol details for compliance monitoring agents. It enumerates specific outputs (attestation, endpoint, sister servers), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description implies it is for obtaining foundational info, but does not state specific scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives.
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 USDC per query after the daily free allowance (25/day). On a 402, pay the returned Solana memo 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 | Solana tx signature, 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?
Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly explains the payment model, free allowance, 402 error handling, and re-call procedure. It does not mention destructive actions, which is fine for a read-only tool, and provides 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 reasonably concise with three sentences covering purpose, payment, and usage. Each sentence adds necessary information without fluff, though the payment explanation could be slightly tighter.
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 (6 parameters, payment flow), the description covers purpose, sources, and payment logic. It assumes prior knowledge of Solana and 402 handling but is complete enough for an AI agent with basic 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%, but the description adds value by explaining agent_id's role in free-tier scoping and payment_tx's use in retry logic. This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions, earning a 4.
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 checks product and FDA/CPSC recalls, specifying sources and severity classification. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like enforcement_actions by focusing on recall data.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compliance_alerts, enforcement_actions). The description focuses on functionality and payment but lacks context for tool selection.
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 USDC per query after a daily free allowance (25/day). On a 402, pay the returned Solana memo 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 | Solana tx signature, 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 discloses payment details ($0.01 USDC per query, daily free allowance), 402 error handling, and agent_id scoping. It omits explicit read-only nature but the search function implies non-destructive behavior.
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 concise sentences: first states core functionality, second covers payment and error recovery. No redundant information, front-loaded and 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 key aspects: search scope, payment model, and error handling. Output schema exists, so return values are documented. Missing comparison to sibling tools, but overall complete for a complex paid search tool.
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%, but the description adds value by explaining the payment workflow involving agent_id and payment_tx, and the result ordering ('newest first'). This enriches understanding beyond parameter 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 specifies the verb 'search', identifies specific resources (Federal Register, openFDA, CPSC), and lists filtering criteria (industry, agency, type, keyword, severity). It distinguishes from siblings like recall_check and compliance_alerts by focusing on regulatory updates and final rules.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as compliance_alerts, enforcement_actions, or recall_check. The description does not include when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria.
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!