Skip to main content
Glama

Regulatory Catalysts

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Fda Adcom Calendar

fda_adcom_calendar
Read-onlyIdempotent

Upcoming FDA advisory committee (AdCom) meeting calendar — a leading biotech regulatory catalyst. Lists FDA panel meetings announced in the Federal Register (keyless), extracting the scheduled meeting date from each notice. Covers oncology (ODAC), cellular/tissue & gene therapy (CTGTAC), and every other FDA advisory committee; captures panel-vote meetings that precede or accompany drug/biologic approval decisions (PDUFA-adjacent). Returns each meeting with committee, meeting date (ISO when parseable) plus raw date text, topic, publication date, Federal Register URL, and document number, sorted soonest-first. Use for AdCom, advisory committee, panel vote, drug approval catalyst, FDA meeting calendar, upcoming biotech panels.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of meetings to return (1–20). Default 10.
committeeNoCase-insensitive substring filter on the committee / notice title, e.g. "oncologic", "gene therapy", "cardiovascular". Omit for all committees.
upcoming_onlyNoKeep only meetings whose extracted date is today or later. Default true. If every recent notice describes a past meeting, the found rows are returned with a note.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the data source (Federal Register), extraction of dates, return format, and sorting. It does not contradict annotations. No mention of rate limits or authentication, but annotations cover the safety profile.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is verbose and includes marketing language ('leading biotech regulatory catalyst'). While it is structured and front-loaded with purpose, it contains redundant phrases that could be trimmed. It earns a 3 for being functional but not maximally concise.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly explains the return fields (committee, date, topic, etc.) and sorting. It also covers data source, coverage, and default behavior. For a calendar-fetching tool, this is fairly complete and leaves few open questions.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description repeats some details (e.g., committee filter is substring, upcoming_only defaults true) but adds no new information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists upcoming FDA advisory committee meetings from the Federal Register, specifying the verb 'lists' and resource 'FDA AdCom calendar'. It covers multiple committees and returns meeting details. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'pdufa_catalysts', which may have similar functionality.

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?

The description provides usage contexts at the end (e.g., 'Use for AdCom, advisory committee, panel vote...') and explains the scope (all committees). It does not mention when not to use the tool or offer alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for typical use cases.

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

All Regulatory Catalysts 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but the ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and multiple Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.) could cause confusion for an agent selecting the appropriate tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix snake_case and camelCase inconsistently, with no strong verb_noun pattern. Examples include 'ask_pipeworx' vs 'discover_tools' vs 'validate_claim', indicating a lack of naming convention.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high for a single server, including many utility tools (memory, subscriptions) that seem peripheral to the core regulatory/data domain. This suggests scope creep and could overwhelm agents.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of regulatory and financial data needs, including company profiles, entity comparison, claim validation, FDA catalysts, and prediction market analysis. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for editing data), but overall it is comprehensive for its stated purpose.

Resources