Skip to main content
Glama

search_device_adverse_events

Search FDA's medical device adverse event reports by device name, brand, manufacturer, product code, or event type, with filters for patient sex and date range.

Instructions

Search FDA device adverse events (MDR)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
device_nameNoName of the medical device
brand_nameNoBrand name of the device
manufacturerNoDevice manufacturer name
product_codeNoFDA product code
event_typeNoType of adverse event
patient_sexNoPatient sex (F=Female, M=Male)
date_fromNoStart date for event date range (YYYYMMDD format)
date_toNoEnd date for event date range (YYYYMMDD format)
limitNoMaximum number of results to return (1-100)
skipNoNumber of results to skip for pagination
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only says 'Search', implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose any API quirks, rate limits, required fields (all optional), or pagination behavior. The behavior with no parameters is unclear.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence. However, conciseness comes at the cost of providing necessary details. It earns a 4 for being clearly structured but not 5 due to missing content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain terms like MDR, how to effectively use filters, or what the output contains. The sibling tools provide context but the description itself is incomplete.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what's in the schema, thus baseline 3.

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 'Search FDA device adverse events (MDR)', indicating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_device_510k, but lacks specificity on the scope of MDR data.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to search adverse events vs. recalls or classifications. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Augmented-Nature/OpenFDA-MCP-Server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server