drug_labelLook up an FDA drug label by brand, generic, or substance name. Returns indications, dosage, warnings, adverse reactions, drug interactions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Brand or generic name (substring match, case-insensitive) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully names the returned sections (indications, dosage, warnings, adverse reactions, interactions), but adds no auth, rate-limit, or matching-behavior detail beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the lookup action and searchable identifiers. Every clause earns its place; no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned label sections, giving the agent enough to know what it will get. Nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and already documents the single 'name' parameter as brand or generic (substring, case-insensitive). The description adds 'substance' as an accepted input beyond the schema, a minor extension; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (look up) and resource (FDA drug label) plus the accepted identifier types. No sibling covers drug labels directly (fda_firm_dossier is firm-level), so the purpose is unambiguous even without explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the searchable name types (brand, generic, substance), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.