Skip to main content
Glama

get_verification

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. Read a saved verification run (and its physician-review accuracy, if any). Each row names the check that produced it (beta).

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": {
      "run_id": "<run_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_verification"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
run_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses important constraints such as non-clinical use, synthetic data only, and beta status, and notes that results include physician-review accuracy if any, but it omits operational details like permissions or pagination behavior.

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?

The actual purpose is buried after repeated disclaimer sentences. While the safety information may be relevant, the structure does not front-load what the tool does or how to use it.

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?

The output schema covers return values, and the description adds safety context plus a note about row contents. However, for a tool with no annotations and an undocumented run_id parameter, it leaves a meaningful gap around how to obtain or format the required identifier.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented run_id parameter. It implies that run_id identifies a saved verification run, but it does not explain the ID format, source, or any constraint beyond that implication.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The sentence 'Read a saved verification run' gives a clear verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings such as get_accuracy or export_verification, but the core operation is understandable.

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 description provides safety and data-use constraints, including 'Not for clinical use' and 'Use synthetic test data only', but it never explains when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_accuracy or export_verification.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.