dailymed_list_rxcuisList product-level RxNorm concept identifiers (rxcui + rxstring + rxtty term type) known to DailyMed (paginated). DailyMed v2: GET /rxcuis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based). Default 1. | |
| pagesize | No | Results per page (max 100). Default 100. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context the annotations don't: it is paginated and backed by the DailyMed v2 GET /rxcuis endpoint. It says nothing about rate limits, auth, ordering, or what an empty page means, so it stays at an adequate 3.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence carrying resource, returned fields, pagination, and endpoint reference with zero filler.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description's enumeration of returned fields (rxcui, rxstring, rxtty) is genuinely load-bearing for this low-complexity list tool. Only the lack of usage routing keeps it from a 5.
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 100% and both page/pagesize are fully documented in the schema with defaults and max values. The word 'paginated' in the description adds no syntax beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and a precise resource (product-level RxNorm concept identifiers) and spells out the returned fields (rxcui + rxstring + rxtty). This cleanly separates it from siblings that list NDCs, UNIIs, drug names, or application numbers.
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 notes it is paginated but never says when to reach for this tool versus dailymed_list_ndcs, dailymed_list_drug_names, or the search tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing.
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.