FDA Data MCP

Device Classification Lookup

fda_device_class

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lookup FDA device classification details by product code. Returns device name, device class (I/II/III), medical specialty, regulation number, review panel, submission type, and definition. Requires: product code (3-letter code from 510(k), PMA, or device product listings). Related: fda_product_code_lookup (cross-reference across 510(k) and PMA), fda_search_510k (clearances for this product code), fda_search_pma (PMA approvals for this product code).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`product_code`	Yes	Device product code

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and non-mutating behavior. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the required input format and the list of return fields, going beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and returns, then requirements, then related tools. No fluff; every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, read-only lookup tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, input requirements, return values, and alternatives. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema provides a basic description for product_code ('Device product code') with 100% coverage, but the tool description enriches this with the specific 3-letter code format and its sources (510(k), PMA, device product listings), aiding the agent in constructing valid input.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Lookup'), the resource ('FDA device classification details'), and the method ('by product code'). It lists the specific data returned and distinguishes itself from related sibling tools (fda_product_code_lookup, fda_search_510k, fda_search_pma).

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 explicitly states the prerequisite (product code from 510(k), PMA, or device product listings) and names three alternative tools with their distinct purposes, effectively telling the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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?