SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

Recent US recalls matching a keyword: CPSC consumer-product

agent_intel_consumer_product_recalls

Read-only

Recent US recalls matching a keyword: CPSC consumer-product recalls (saferproducts.gov, by recall date and description text) and FDA food enforcement reports (openFDA, reason for recall). Vehicle (NHTSA) and FDA drug/device recalls are not included. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "agent_intel_consumer_product_recalls"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	Yes	Keyword, 3 to 60 characters, e.g. laminator, listeria
`days`	No	CPSC look-back window in days, 1 to 365 (default 60)
`limit`	No	Results per source, 1 to 10 (default 5)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	No
`cpsc`	No
`note`	No
`source`	No
`fdaFood`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`cpscWindow`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds significant operational context the annotations do not: the paid model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc) and the fact that failed calls are free. It does not describe result ordering beyond 'by recall date' or what an empty result set looks like, which keeps it off a 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and source scope before the exclusions and the pricing tail. Dense but nothing is padding; the only cost is the somewhat run-on parenthetical source listing.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers sources, exclusions, and payment obligations — the main complexity drivers. The remaining gap is that payment mechanics (how x402 settlement is triggered) and result-count behavior (limit is per source) live only in the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter basics are already documented. The description still adds meaning by explaining the matching mechanics — recall date and description text — and by scoping 'days' to CPSC only, which the schema's 'CPSC look-back window' phrasing implies but the description confirms. Mild redundancy, but genuine added semantics.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific resource (US recalls) plus the exact keyword-matching sources (saferproducts.gov CPSC, openFDA food enforcement) and explicitly names what is excluded (NHTSA vehicle, FDA drug/device). An agent can tell exactly what corpus is searched without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The inclusion/exclusion sentence gives clear routing logic: use this for consumer-product and food recalls, use something else for vehicle or drug/device recalls. It stops short of naming specific alternative tools, but no sibling in the list covers recalls, so the scope statement effectively does the differentiation.

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

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?