Skip to main content
Glama

verify_medications

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. Verify STRUCTURED medication claims. Each claim: {rawText, drug, claimType, structuredValue} where claimType is one of dose_range, route, frequency, indication, contraindication, interaction, monitoring, controlled_substance, rems_attestation. One claimType per claim: an order with a dose AND a route is two claims. Send one patient's medications per call: when the call states one route for a drug (in the structuredValue of its route, dose_range or frequency claims), that route is carried onto the drug's frequency claims that state none. Nothing is carried for a drug whose claims state two routes or one Orinyx cannot read, or whose drug name names a different route; a route written only in a drug name is never carried. For an order as written ("warfarin 5 mg by mouth daily") use verify_order_text instead. Returns what was checked, every flag with its severity, reason and citation. Each row names the check that produced it (beta). Claims must be synthetic test data, never real patient records or identifiers: rawText is stored in the audit record.

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": {
      "claims": "<claims>"
    },
    "name": "verify_medications"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimsYes
tool_nameNo
tool_versionNo
check_interactionsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the clinical-use prohibition, the data-retention behavior ("rawText is stored in the audit record"), the response shape (flags with severity, reason, citation), and a non-obvious transformation rule about route carry-over onto frequency claims, including the cases where nothing is carried. That is exactly the behavior an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Safety and scope are front-loaded, and the carry-over rule is stated precisely with its exceptions rather than hand-waved. Some content is redundant with the output schema ("Returns what was checked, every flag with its severity, reason and citation"), and the beta parenthetical is marginal, but the density is justified for the complexity.

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 single-call verification tool with a nested-ish claim payload, the description covers input format, per-call scoping, alternative tooling, and safety obligations, and an output schema exists so return values need not be fully spelled out. The only meaningful omission is any hint about what check_interactions or tool_name/tool_version do.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the claims array is typed only as a generic object, so the description must compensate; it defines the four claim fields, enumerates all nine valid claimTypes, and states the one-claimType-per-claim constraint. However, the three optional parameters (tool_name, tool_version, check_interactions) get no explanation anywhere, which is a real gap given the zero 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Verify STRUCTURED medication claims") and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling verify_order_text for free-text orders. An agent can distinguish this tool from verify_order_text without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It names the alternative tool and the exact condition that selects it ("For an order as written ... use verify_order_text instead"), plus scoping rules: one claimType per claim, one patient's medications per call, synthetic data only, not for clinical decisions. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are explicit.

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.