Skip to main content
Glama

Openfda

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Send Pipeworx Feedback

pipeworx_feedback

Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist. Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise). ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server in your client (another vendor's Gmail, Splunk, Slack, etc. connector), we cannot fix it and reporting it here only delays you; file it with that server instead. Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists. Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt. Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed and what changed. The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap. Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day. Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNobug = something broke or returned wrong data. feature = a new tool or capability you wish existed. data_gap = data Pipeworx does not currently expose. praise = positive note. other = anything else.
contextNoOptional structured context: which tool, pack, or vertical this relates to.
messageNoYour feedback in plain text. Be specific (which tool, what error, what data was missing). 1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max.
claim_tokenNoRead the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / claim_token
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Read the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "type",
-  "message"
-]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (all false), the description discloses several valuable behaviors: filing without an account returns a claim_token, the token can be passed back later to read resolution status, the tool is rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, and it is free and doesn't count against quota. These are non-obvious behaviors the annotations do not convey.

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 longer than average, but every sentence earns its place: it defines the tool, provides use/non-use cases, gives content guidance, explains the token flow, and mentions limits. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically, with no redundant filler.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description covers the return token behavior and later status reading. It also covers rate limits, quota impact, and the team's response cadence. For a feedback tool with multiple edge cases and a two-phase claim-token flow, this is fully complete.

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 100% and each parameter already has a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic guidance by telling the user to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, not to paste end-user prompts, and clarifies the claim_token round-trip workflow. This is a meaningful value-add over the schema.

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 verb+resource ('Tell the Pipeworx team') and enumerates the exact kinds of feedback (bug, feature/data_gap, praise). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by scoping to 'tools served by this Pipeworx connection' and even warns against filing for other MCP servers.

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 gives explicit when-to-use triggers: wrong/stale data, missing tools or data, praise. It also gives an explicit when-not-to-use with a redirect: if the tool came from a different MCP server, file with that server. This is exactly the kind of decision guidance agents need.

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

All Openfda toolsInspect
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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct names and purposes, but the large number of meta-tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx variants, deep_research) and overlapping research/scanning tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes) could cause confusion. An agent may need to carefully read descriptions to choose correctly.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case is prevalent but not universal. FDA tools are consistently named with 'fda_' prefix, but there are single-word verbs (remember, recall), camelCase is absent, and some tool names are long and descriptive (scan_competitor_ai_presence). The mix of patterns is readable but not highly consistent.

Tool Count3/5

43 tools is high and includes both dedicated tools and meta-tools that can access thousands more. There is redundancy (e.g., FDA data can be retrieved via fda_drug_approvals or ask_pipeworx). The scope is broad, but many tools could be consolidated. Count feels borderline excessive for the apparent purpose.

Completeness4/5

FDA coverage is excellent with tools for approvals, labels, events, recalls, shortages, warning letters, etc. Other domains (financial, betting, npm) are covered by meta-tools, providing breadth. However, dedicated non-FDA tools are sparse, and the server relies heavily on the universal query tools for completeness.

Resources