Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Orinyx

by io.github.lexthirteen-ai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_otc_monograph

Not for clinical use. Orinyx checks medication claims against cited FDA label text for testing and evaluation only. Do not use its results to diagnose, treat, prescribe or make patient care decisions. Use synthetic test data only. What one FDA OTC monograph (id like M013) covers: ingredients, categories, its current documents and its orders.

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": {
      "monograph_id": "<monograph_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_otc_monograph"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
monograph_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuine behavioral context beyond the schema: a strong safety/legal constraint that results must not inform clinical decisions and that only synthetic data should be used. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what the monograph 'orders' actually contain, so it is partial rather than complete.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Roughly two-thirds of the text is overlapping disclaimer boilerplate ("Not for clinical use" and "Do not use its results to diagnose, treat, prescribe...") that restates the same idea twice. The actual purpose sentence is buried at the end and even contains a stray line break, so the definition is not front-loaded on what the tool does.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the one-parameter shape is simple. What is still missing is the relational context an agent needs in a 16-sibling namespace: which sibling produces the monograph id and which one to use for deeper section content.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, so the description has to compensate. It does partially by giving a concrete example ("id like M013"), which conveys the expected format, but it never states where such ids come from (presumably find_otc_monographs) or what happens on an invalid id.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the resource's contents ("ingredients, categories, its current documents and its orders") and gives an example id format (M013), so an agent can infer this returns an overview of one OTC monograph. However, there is no verb and no differentiation from the closely related siblings find_otc_monographs (search) and read_otc_monograph_section (section read), so the boundary is left to inference.

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?

The only usage guidance given is a prohibition ("Not for clinical use", "synthetic test data only"), which is about compliance, not tool selection. It never says when to call this versus find_otc_monographs to discover an id or read_otc_monograph_section to drill into content, despite those siblings existing.

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

All Orinyx toolsInspect
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