FDA Data MCP

Full Company Profile

fda_company_full

Read-onlyIdempotent

Comprehensive company profile: facilities (with addresses and operations), enforcement actions (recalls), 510(k) clearances, PMA approvals, and drug applications for a single company and its known aliases. Costs 5 credits. Excludes: inspection history, citations, compliance actions (warning letters), facility-level product lists, import refusals, and family rollups across separate child company records. For family rollups: call fda_suggest_subsidiaries first, then use fda_save_aliases for true same-company names or fda_link_subsidiaries for distinct child companies. Related: fda_suggest_subsidiaries (discover subsidiaries), fda_link_subsidiaries (create explicit family links), fda_get_facility (per-facility products, operations type, risk summary by FEI), fda_inspections (inspection history by FEI or company), fda_citations (CFR violations by FEI), fda_compliance_actions (warning letters/seizures by FEI or company), fda_search_aphis (animal health facilities for vet companies), fda_drug_shortages (active drug shortages).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`company`	Yes	Company name to look up
`drugs_limit`	No	Drug applications result limit
`drugs_offset`	No	Drug applications result offset
`approvals_limit`	No	PMA approvals result limit
`approvals_offset`	No	PMA approvals result offset
`clearances_limit`	No	510(k) clearances result limit
`facilities_limit`	No	Facilities result limit
`clearances_offset`	No	510(k) clearances result offset
`enforcement_limit`	No	Enforcement result limit
`facilities_offset`	No	Facilities result offset
`enforcement_offset`	No	Enforcement result offset

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses a 5-credit cost, inclusion of known aliases, and specific exclusions. This adds meaningful behavioral context such as pricing and scope boundaries that are not present in the annotations.

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?

The description is long but information-dense and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose then moving to exclusions and related tools. The related tool list is extensive but useful for agent navigation. No redundant sentences; each segment earns its place given the tool's breadth.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the exact included data categories and their sub-details (e.g., facilities with addresses and operations, enforcement actions as recalls). It also covers pricing, aliases, exclusions, and alternatives. It could be slightly more explicit about pagination behavior, but the parameter schema covers limit/offset mechanics.

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 100%, with all parameters clearly documented. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond mapping categories (e.g., drug applications, 510(k) clearances) to the limit/offset parameters, which is already implied by the parameter names and descriptions.

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 defines the tool as a comprehensive company profile aggregator, listing specific content types (facilities, recalls, 510(k)s, PMAs, drug applications) and scope ('single company and its known aliases'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating exclusions and naming related tools.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: it states the tool is for single-company aggregate profiles, lists excluded categories (inspection history, warning letters, etc.), and gives alternative tools for family rollups and specific data types. It also names related tools like fda_suggest_subsidiaries, fda_inspections, and fda_compliance_actions.

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

All FDA Data MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with clear boundaries, such as fda_search_drugs for drug applications and fda_search_510k for device clearances. However, some overlap exists, like fda_device_udi and fda_device_udi_lookup both querying UDI data, which could cause confusion despite differences in scope.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a clear fda_ prefix, using descriptive verbs like search, get, list, and link. This uniformity makes the set predictable and easy to navigate, with no deviations in naming style.

Tool Count2/5

With 48 tools, the count is excessive for a single server, making it overwhelming and difficult for agents to manage. While the domain is broad (FDA data), the toolset feels bloated with many specialized or overlapping tools that could be consolidated.

Completeness5/5

The toolset provides comprehensive coverage of FDA data domains, including drugs, devices, inspections, compliance, recalls, and facilities. It supports full CRUD-like operations (e.g., search, get, link, save) and lifecycle workflows, with no obvious gaps for the intended purpose.

Resources

Need Help?