Govparse Government Data Gateway

fda_warningletters_search

Which FDA-regulated firms have an open FDA warning letter? Search the FDA Warning Letters index by company, product area (drugs, devices, biologics, food, dietary-supplement, cosmetics, tobacco, veterinary), issuing office, subject (CGMP, adulterated, misbranded), open/closed status, or issue/posted date. Returns the recipient firm (entity-resolved where possible), issuing office, subject, and response/close-out dates — a documented compliance gap and remediation trigger. [price: $0.05/row]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sort`	No	letter_issue_date \| posted_date :asc\|:desc. Default letter_issue_date:desc.
`limit`	No	Max rows (default 25, cap 100).
`since`	No	Letter issue date on/after this date (YYYY-MM-DD).
`closed`	No	false = open letters (no close-out) only; true = closed-out only.
`offset`	No	Rows to skip.
`company`	No	Recipient company name — suffix/punctuation-insensitive.
`subject`	No	Subject / alleged-violation fragment.
`entity_id`	No	Resolved employer entity UUID (pivots to business360).
`responded`	No	true = a firm response letter is on record; false = none.
`posted_since`	No	Posted date on/after this date (YYYY-MM-DD) — newly-published letters.
`product_area`	No	drugs \| devices \| biologics \| food \| dietary-supplement \| cosmetics \| tobacco \| veterinary \| other (CSV).
`issuing_office`	No	FDA center / district office fragment.

Schema Changelog

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

AddedJul 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations, but description discloses return fields, pricing ($0.05/row), and the fact that it returns compliance gaps. Does not explicitly state read-only, but context implies it.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Single paragraph of ~100 words, front-loaded with key purpose, covers filters, return fields, and pricing efficiently. Could be slightly more structured but overall 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?

With 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, description provides a good overview: purpose, filters, return fields, and pricing. Missing pagination details but offset is in schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description provides overall context but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'search the FDA Warning Letters index' with specific verb and resource, and lists available filters, distinguishing it from sibling FDA tools like approvals or recalls.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the description implies its use for FDA warning letter data. Lacks 'when not to use' or prerequisites.

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

All Govparse Government Data Gateway 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.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct domain and specific action (e.g., FDA approvals vs clearances vs recalls; firmstanding business360 dossier vs search vs screen). Even overlapping concepts like 'business360' vs 'business360_lookup' are distinguished by input (UUID vs name+state). No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use a consistent lowercase snake_case pattern with domain prefix (e.g., fda_*, firmstanding_*, fmcsa_*, govcon_*). Action words (search, lookup, screen, feed, stats) follow predictable usage. The naming is uniform and easy to parse.

Tool Count4/5

38 tools is on the higher end but appropriate for a comprehensive government data gateway spanning multiple agencies and datasets. Each domain has a reasonable number of tools (e.g., FMCSA: 7, OFLC: 6). Could potentially be trimmed slightly, but overall well-scoped for the stated purpose.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the major government data sources comprehensively: FDA (approvals, clearances, recalls), FMCSA (carrier census, safety, insurance, etc.), FSIS, DOJ/OFLC, OSHA/EPA/DOL enforcement, SEC insider filings, clinical trials, VA facilities/opportunities/vendors, and federal contracting. No obvious gaps for the stated gateway purpose.

Resources

Need Help?