Search official US recall records by product name, brand, model, or UPC. Covers CPSC consumer products and FDA food, drug and device enforcement. Returns only cited records from the store, each with a source URL and a match score. If nothing matches, returns an empty list rather than guessing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| market | No | US |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 meaningful behavioral context: results are limited to cited records, each result includes a source URL and match score, and no matches yield an empty list rather than fabricated results.
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?
Three tightly written sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, scope is stated in the second sentence, and output behavior in the third. Every sentence earns its place.
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 read-only search tool with three simple parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains what can be searched, what results look like, and what happens on no match. The only minor gap is not explicitly describing the limit parameter, but the low complexity and annotations make this a small omission.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'query' accepts product name, brand, model, or UPC and implies the US market scope, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or its effect on result count. Two of three parameters are semantically covered.
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?
The description states a specific action and resource: 'Search official US recall records by product name, brand, model, or UPC.' It also clarifies scope by naming CPSC and FDA coverage, making the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools.
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?
The description gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: US recall lookup across specific agencies with specific search fields. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools appear unrelated, so no redirect is necessary.
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.