Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

goodrx_pet_medications

List GoodRx pet medications for cats and dogs, returning drug slugs and pet page URLs for use with audience=pets lookups.

Instructions

List GoodRx pet medications. Lists the drugs that have a GoodRx information page for cats and dogs (21 on 2026-10-03). Each entry has the drug slug and the URL of its pet page; the slug can be passed to the drug information lookup with audience=pets. A retained copy up to about a day old is returned, flagged X-Availability-Mode: stale, if GoodRx is unreachable.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.9

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait: a retained copy up to about a day old can be returned, flagged `X-Availability-Mode: stale`, if GoodRx is unreachable. It does not cover auth or rate-limit behavior, but for a read-only listing tool the caching disclosure is the meaningful context.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the return shape and the staleness caveat. Each sentence earns its place; the dated parenthetical '(21 on 2026-10-03)' is marginally noisy but does convey the fixed small size of the list.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (`slug`, pet-page URL) and the stale-fallback flag. With no params and no annotations, nothing essential for calling the tool appears to be missing.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds that each entry carries a `slug` and a pet-page URL, which is output shape rather than input semantics but still useful given no output schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List GoodRx pet medications') and narrows the scope precisely ('drugs that have a GoodRx information page for cats and dogs', with a count). It distinguishes itself from siblings like goodrx_drugs by specifying the pet audience and the slug-to-lookup handoff.

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?

It tells the agent what to do with the result: pass the returned `slug` to the drug information lookup with `audience=pets`. That is real workflow guidance. However, it doesn't state when to prefer this over sibling catalogue tools such as goodrx_drugs or goodrx_conditions, so it stops short of full alternative 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