Drug-drug interaction checker for clinical LLMs using RxNorm and DailyMed.
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.
Average 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: single pair, multi-pair, and name normalization. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_interaction, check_interactions_multi, normalize_drug_name).
Three tools are well-scoped for a drug interaction checker: one for single pairs, one for batch checks, and one for name resolution.
Covers the core workflow: name lookup, single interaction, and batch interaction. Missing a tool to retrieve all interactions for a drug, but the multi tool can handle it with multiple calls.
check_interactionAInspectCheck the interaction between two drugs (by brand or generic name). Returns severity (contraindicated / major / moderate / minor / unknown), mechanism (when known), and source citations. Always include the response disclaimer in your final answer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| drug_a | Yes | ||
| drug_b | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns severity, mechanism, and citations, and that a disclaimer must be included. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or any authentication or rate limit requirements.
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 consists of two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: one for tool functionality and one for usage instruction. No extra words, front-loaded with key 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 simple two-parameter input and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (severity, mechanism, citations) and the disclaimer requirement. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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 schema has only string parameters drug_a and drug_b with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by stating 'by brand or generic name' and 'two drugs', clarifying that these are drug name inputs. This compensates for the bare 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 verb 'check', the resource 'interaction between two drugs', and specifies output details (severity, mechanism, source citations). It distinguishes from siblings like check_interactions_multi and normalize_drug_name by focusing on exactly two drugs.
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 use for two drugs but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over check_interactions_multi (for multiple drugs) or normalize_drug_name. The instruction to include a disclaimer is present but provides no guidance on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_interactions_multiAInspectPairwise interaction check across a list of drugs (polypharmacy). Returns one entry per unordered pair (dedupes A-B/B-A). Limit 8 drugs (= 28 pairs).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| drugs | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Clearly states deduplication of unordered pairs and maximum input size. Could add details on error handling or response format, but basic behavior is well 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key behavior (dedup, limit). 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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the essential behavior and constraints. Minor gap: could briefly mention what the returned entries look like or edge cases like invalid drugs.
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?
With schema coverage at 0%, description fully explains the 'drugs' parameter: it's a list of drugs for pairwise checking, with a limit of 8. Adds meaning beyond the schema's type constraints.
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 explicitly states it performs pairwise interaction checks for multiple drugs (polypharmacy) and returns deduplicated pairs. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like check_interaction which likely handles single pairs.
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 limit of 8 drugs (28 pairs) and implies when not to use (e.g., single drug). However, lacks explicit mention of alternatives or when to prefer sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
normalize_drug_nameAInspectResolve a brand or generic drug name to its canonical RxNorm record: RxCUI, generic name, brand names, synonyms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Brand or generic, e.g. 'Tylenol' or 'acetaminophen'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions output fields but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, error behavior, case sensitivity, or any constraints. The description is too minimal to provide adequate behavioral transparency.
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 a single sentence, 14 words, front-loaded with the action and output. Every word is useful, no redundancy. Efficient and clear.
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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description lists the expected output fields (RxCUI, generic name, brand names, synonyms) which provides sufficient completeness. It could mention output format but is otherwise 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% and the schema already describes the 'name' parameter with examples. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, 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?
The description uses a specific verb 'Resolve' and explicitly states the resource (drug name) and the output (canonical RxNorm record with RxCUI, generic name, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like check_interaction which are for interaction checking.
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 implicitly indicates usage for normalizing drug names, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the siblings (check_interaction, check_interactions_multi). No when-not-to-use or alternative conditions are mentioned.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.