Fda Drug Competition

Purple Book Competition Profile

purple_book_competition_profile

Read-onlyIdempotent

Profile FDA-licensed biologic competition around a proper, proprietary, or reference-product name. Counts unique BLAs as sponsors/applications and separates reference products, biosimilars, and interchangeables. It does not measure launches, availability, sales, or market share.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Product rows (1-100, default 50).
`biologic`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	Yes
`biologic`	Yes
`products`	Yes
`applicants`	Yes
`unique_blas`	Yes
`dataset_note`	No
`dataset_stale`	No
`interpretation`	Yes
`reference_blas`	Yes
`biosimilar_blas`	Yes
`dataset_updated`	No
`dataset_age_days`	No
`matched_products`	Yes
`interchangeable_blas`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 2, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / dataset_age_days
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "number",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / dataset_note
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / dataset_stale
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
AddedJul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag readOnly and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavior: it counts unique BLAs and separates product categories rather than measuring market activity. The explicit exclusions (launches, availability, sales, market share) give an agent a clear model of what this tool can and cannot tell it.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler: purpose, method, and limitations are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, and the key exclusion is placed at the end as a useful caveat rather than cluttering the core definition.

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 two-parameter, read-only profile tool with an output schema available, the description covers the input semantics, output categories, and known limitations. It could be slightly stronger with an explicit nod to the sibling Orange Book tool for small-molecule equivalents, but it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 required 'biologic' parameter has no schema description, but the tool description fills this gap by defining the accepted name forms (proper, proprietary, or reference-product name). The 'limit' parameter is documented in the schema with range and default, so the description does not need to repeat it.

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 names a specific action ('Profile'), a specific resource ('FDA-licensed biologic competition'), and a precise input ('proper, proprietary, or reference-product name'). It also states the output categories (reference products, biosimilars, interchangeables), distinguishing it from sibling tools like purple_book_biosimilars or purple_book_reference_product.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly indicates when to use: when you need a competitive profile around a named biologic, and explicitly lists what it does not provide (launches, availability, sales, market share). It does not name an alternative sibling for those other needs, so it stops short of fully explicit substitution guidance.

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

All Fda Drug Competition 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.