Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

goodrx_comparisons

List GoodRx head-to-head drug comparisons by health topic, returning each comparison's name, slug, and URL, with a stale fallback if GoodRx is unreachable.

Instructions

List GoodRx drug comparisons. Lists GoodRx's head-to-head drug comparisons grouped by health topic, for example ADHD. Each comparison has a name, a slug for the comparison lookup and its GoodRx URL. 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 behavioral burden, and it does well: it discloses the offline fallback (a retained copy up to ~a day old) and the `X-Availability-Mode: stale` header flag. It also enumerates the returned fields (name, slug, URL). It omits auth/rate-limit context, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences, all substantive. Slight redundancy between 'List GoodRx drug comparisons' and the following 'Lists GoodRx's head-to-head drug comparisons', which repeats the verb and resource rather than extending it.

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 no-param listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (name, slug, URL) and the degraded-availability behavior, which is enough for correct invocation. No return-shape schema exists, so the field enumeration is a real contribution.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description's mention of a `slug` refers to an output field and an implied downstream lookup, not a parameter of this call.

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 and resource ('List GoodRx drug comparisons') and adds scope detail ('head-to-head drug comparisons grouped by health topic'). This lets an agent separate it from the singular goodrx_comparison detail tool, though the plural/singular distinction is only implied rather than named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: browse comparisons grouped by health topic, then use the returned `slug` for a comparison lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling (e.g. goodrx_comparison) is named as the alternative, so the agent must infer the routing.

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