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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| domain | No | drug | |
| date_to | No | ||
| date_from | No | ||
| product_class | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.