Govparse Government Data Gateway

fsis_recalls_search

Which food companies have an FSIS meat/poultry/egg recall? Search USDA FSIS recall and public-health-alert records by recalling firm, classification (Class I/II/III or Public Health Alert), reason (allergens, contamination, misbranding), state, active status, outbreak link, or recall date (since). Returns the recalling firm (entity-resolved where possible), classification, reason, product, and dates — a remediation, sanitation, and displacement trigger for food-safety sellers. [price: $0.05/row]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sort`	No	recall_date \| last_modified_date :asc\|:desc. Default recall_date:desc.
`limit`	No	Max rows (default 25, cap 100).
`since`	No	Recall on/after this date (YYYY-MM-DD).
`state`	No	Distribution state code(s), CSV.
`active`	No	true = currently-active recall notices only.
`offset`	No	Rows to skip.
`reason`	No	Reason fragment (Unreported Allergens, Product Contamination, Misbranding, ...).
`company`	No	Recalling firm — suffix/punctuation-insensitive.
`outbreak`	No	true = recalls related to an outbreak.
`entity_id`	No	Resolved employer entity UUID.
`recall_type`	No	Active Recall \| Closed Recall \| Public Health Alert (CSV).
`classification`	No	Class I \| Class II \| Class III \| Public Health Alert (CSV).

Schema Changelog

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

AddedJul 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes return fields ('recalling firm, classification, reason, product, dates') and mentions use case and pricing. However, lacks disclosure on authorization, rate limits, or potential side effects.

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 front-loaded with purpose, listing criteria, return fields, and use case. Not overly verbose; each part adds value. Could be slightly more structured.

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 search tool with no output schema, description covers key inputs, outputs, and use case. Minor gaps: pagination details (limit/offset) not mentioned, and no error handling or output format hints.

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 detailed descriptions and examples for all 12 parameters. The description adds minimal new semantic meaning beyond summarizing filter capabilities. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a clear question and states 'Search USDA FSIS recall and public-health-alert records' with specific resource type (meat/poultry/egg) and domain (FSIS). It is distinct from sibling tools like fsis_establishments_search.

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?

Lists many filter criteria (firm, classification, reason, state, active, outbreak, date) and states what it returns. Does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives, but context is clear.

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?