SiteCheck Company Records

Latest FDA warning letters from the FDA listing page

gov_fda_warning_letters

Read-only

Latest FDA warning letters from the FDA listing page: company, issuing FDA center or program, subject (violation category) and issue date, with a link to each letter. First listing page only; no full history and no letter text. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

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": "gov_fda_warning_letters"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	No	Optional company-name filter, 2 to 60 characters
`limit`	No	Letters to return, 1 to 20 (default 10)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`total`	No
`source`	No
`letters`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds the operationally critical facts an agent cannot infer: a per-call price of $0.002 USDC via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, and that failed calls are not charged. It also discloses the truncation behavior (first listing page only, no letter body), which is exactly the kind of hidden limitation that matters for this tool.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the resource and payload, the second carries scope limits and pricing. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the most decision-relevant constraint (first page only) appears before the commercial detail.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only, two-optional-parameter lookup with an output schema already covering return shape, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: content boundaries, payment/auth model, and failure billing behavior. Nothing material is left to inference.

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?

Both parameters (q, limit) are fully documented in the schema with ranges and a default, so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline applies. The description never mentions filtering or result count, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific resource (FDA warning letters from the FDA listing page) and enumerates the returned fields: company, issuing center/program, subject violation category, issue date, and a link. Among the many gov_* and b2b_* registry/directory siblings, no other tool covers FDA enforcement letters, so the resource alone distinguishes it.

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?

"First listing page only; no full history and no letter text" gives explicit scope exclusions, which functions as when-not guidance. It does not point to an alternative for full history or full text, so it stops short of a true when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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

All SiteCheck Company Records 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.

Resources

Need Help?