A
license-
qualityC
maintenanceEnables querying FDA medical device regulatory databases including 510(k) clearances, PMA approvals, recalls, and adverse events through natural language.
75
MIT
FDA Approvals
Server Details
FDA drug approvals, 510(k) device clearances, recalls and adverse-event reports.
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- guptaprakhariitr/fda-approvals-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 1
- Server Listing
- fda-approvals-mcp
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A3.7/5.0
Tool DescriptionsB
Average 3.5/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct FDA data domain: adverse events, drug approvals, labels, and recalls. No semantic overlap exists between them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'fda_<domain>_<action>' pattern, using underscores and clear descriptive names. The two drug-related tools share the 'fda_drug_' prefix.
Tool Count5/5
Four tools are well-suited for the FDA Approvals domain, covering the most common requests (approvals, labels, recalls, adverse events) without being overwhelming.
Completeness4/5
Core FDA drug information is covered, but clinical trial data or enforcement reports are missing. Agents can work around the minor gap.
Available Tools
4 toolsfda_adverse_eventsAInspect
Aggregate FDA adverse-event reports (FAERS) for a drug. Deduplicates by safetyreportid (bug fixed in 0.2.1). Returns total reports, unique reaction count, and top 20 reactions by frequency in the requested window.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| drug | Yes | Generic drug name. | |
| limit | No | ||
| date_to | No | ||
| date_from | No |
Tool Definition Quality
A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It mentions deduplication and a bug fix, plus the returned metrics. This is relatively transparent, though it could note that data is aggregate and not individual reports.
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, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose. Highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and only 25% parameter schema coverage. Description explains outputs but omits parameter details. For a simple aggregate tool, it is moderately complete but could be improved by describing parameters.
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?
Schema coverage is 25% (only 'drug' described). The description adds context about requesting a time window but does not specify date format or limit parameters. It partially compensates for low schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states it aggregates FDA adverse-event reports (FAERS) for a drug, with specific outputs: total reports, unique reaction count, top 20 reactions. It is distinct from sibling tools (drug approval, label, recall searches).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The implied usage is for adverse events, but no explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives. It lacks when/not-to-use directions, making it adequate but not outstanding.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fda_drug_approval_searchAInspect
Search FDA drug approvals from Drugs@FDA. Filter by sponsor, brand name, generic name, or approval date range. Returns the application number, sponsor, brand/generic name, and approval date for each approval (NDA / BLA / supplemental).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| brand | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| date_to | No | ISO YYYY-MM-DD. | |
| generic | No | Generic ingredient, e.g. 'semaglutide'. | |
| sponsor | No | Company/sponsor name, e.g. 'Pfizer'. | |
| date_from | No | ISO YYYY-MM-DD. |
Tool Definition Quality
A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source, filterable fields, and return types (NDA/BLA/supplemental). However, it does not mention pagination behavior (skip, limit) or rate limits. Overall, it provides decent transparency for a read-oriented search 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?
The description is two sentences long with no redundant words. It front-loads the action ('Search FDA drug approvals'), then enumerates filters and return fields efficiently. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers main filters and returns but omits pagination details, default ordering, and handling of empty results. It is adequate for a straightforward search but lacks completeness for edge cases.
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?
The description lists filter criteria (sponsor, brand, generic, date range) which adds context to the schema's parameters. However, 57% schema coverage means some parameters (skip, limit) are not described in the schema or the narrative. The description complements but does not fully compensate for missing parameter details.
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?
The description clearly states the tool searches FDA drug approvals from Drugs@FDA, lists specific filter criteria (sponsor, brand, generic, date range), and specifies return fields (application number, sponsor, names, approval date). It clearly differs from sibling tools (adverse events, labels, recalls) by focusing solely on approvals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for searching approvals but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., fda_adverse_events, fda_drug_label). No direct comparison or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fda_drug_labelBInspect
Fetch the FDA-approved drug label for a brand or generic name. Includes indications, dosage, contraindications, warnings, adverse reactions.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| drug_name | Yes | Brand or generic, e.g. 'Ozempic' or 'semaglutide'. |
Tool Definition Quality
B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a fetch operation.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and content list, no wasted words.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main content but does not explain output format or error cases, leaving minor gaps.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description for 'drug_name' in the schema already explains it; the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description.
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?
The description clearly states 'Fetch the FDA-approved drug label' specifying the action and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like fda_adverse_events by focusing on label content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs alternatives or when not to use it; lacks context for choosing among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fda_recall_searchCInspect
Search drug, device, or food recall events. Filter by classification (Class I = most serious) and date range. Returns recall number, classification, reason, recalling firm, status.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| domain | No | drug | |
| date_to | No | ||
| date_from | No | ||
| product_class | No |
Tool Definition Quality
C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions return fields but not important details like default domain, date format requirements, pagination limits, or rate limits. The description is minimal beyond basic functionality.
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?
Description is four sentences, concise and front-loaded with the action. No redundancy, though could be slightly more structured by linking parameters explicitly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without schema descriptions, output schema, or annotations, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain parameters, default domain, date constraints, or limit behavior. Incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only generically mentions 'classification' and 'date range' without mapping to specific parameter names, default values, or usage details. It fails to add value beyond the schema's enum labels.
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?
Description clearly states the tool searches recall events for drugs, devices, or foods. It lists filtering options and return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fda_adverse_events (adverse events) and fda_drug_approval_search (drug approvals).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description provides general purpose but no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any exclusion criteria. It does not mention alternatives or specific use cases, leaving the agent to infer context.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- Flicense-qualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to access FDA and ClinicalTrials.gov data for medical device compliance, adverse event monitoring, and regulatory due diligence.
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceProvides LLM-optimized access to FDA data through the OpenFDA API and direct regulatory decision document retrieval, covering all 21 OpenFDA endpoints plus 510(k) summaries, De Novo decisions, and PMA approvals.41MIT
- Flicense-qualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to query and analyze FDA adverse events, drug labels, medical device clearances, and other public health datasets through natural language commands.13
Try in Browser
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.