Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

goodrx_brands

List GoodRx featured brand-name drugs with names, slugs, URLs, and lowest prices for price lookups; supports stale data fallback when GoodRx is unreachable.

Instructions

List GoodRx featured brand-name drugs. Lists the brand-name drugs GoodRx features on its brand-name drugs page. Each entry has the drug name, slug, GoodRx URL, description, information URL and lowest price where shown. The slug feeds the drug prices endpoint. If GoodRx is unreachable, a retained copy up to about a day old is returned and flagged with an X-Availability-Mode: stale header.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.9

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does notable work: it enumerates the returned fields and, importantly, explains the stale-fallback behavior (a retained copy up to ~a day old flagged via X-Availability-Mode: stale). It omits auth, rate limits, and pagination, but the freshness/failover disclosure is meaningful beyond the structured data.

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 content is front-loaded and each later sentence (fields, slug workflow, stale fallback) earns its place. The opening two sentences are somewhat redundant, restating the same 'featured brand-name drugs' purpose, which is a minor efficiency cost.

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 zero-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it lists the return fields (substituting for a missing output schema) and documents fallback behavior. It stops short of explaining how the slug should be consumed or any ordering/filtering semantics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing parameter-wise for the description to compensate for, and there are no misleading hints about inputs.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: list GoodRx featured brand-name drugs, with the scope of the brand-name drugs page made explicit. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like goodrx_drugs or goodrx_drug_prices, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The one usage signal is the workflow note that the `slug` feeds the drug prices endpoint, which implies this is the discovery step before pricing, but no alternative is named and no exclusions are given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools