DailyMed MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific resources like drugs, classes, or codes, with clear boundaries. However, some overlap exists between 'get_all_' and 'search_' tools (e.g., get_all_drug_names vs. search_drug_names), which could cause minor confusion in selection, though descriptions help clarify the pagination differences.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, using 'get_' for retrieval and 'search_' for queries, with snake_case uniformly applied. This predictability makes it easy for agents to understand and navigate the toolset without ambiguity.
Tool Count3/5
With 28 tools, the count is borderline high for a medical database server, potentially feeling heavy and overwhelming. While the domain is complex, the number might exceed typical well-scoped ranges (3-15 tools), suggesting some consolidation could improve usability without losing functionality.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for the DailyMed domain, including CRUD-like operations for drugs, classes, and codes (e.g., get details, search, mappings), with no obvious gaps. It supports core workflows like retrieval, search, and mapping across all key resources, ensuring agents can handle most tasks without dead ends.
Average 3.1/5 across 28 of 28 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'search' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what the output format might be, whether there are rate limits, or if it requires specific permissions. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple search tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 the complexity of RxNorm mappings and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'mappings' are, what the search returns, or how it relates to other mapping tools. For a tool in a domain with many siblings, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'drugName' clearly documented as 'Drug name to search for in RxNorm mappings'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples, formatting hints, or search behavior details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search for RxNorm mappings by drug name' clearly states the action (search) and target (RxNorm mappings), but it's somewhat vague about what 'mappings' entail compared to siblings like 'get_mappings_by_rxcui' or 'get_rxnorm_mappings_by_pharmacologic_class'. It doesn't specify whether this searches for mappings to/from RxNorm or within RxNorm, leaving room for ambiguity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'search_drug_names', 'get_mappings_by_rxcui', and 'get_rxnorm_mappings_by_pharmacologic_class', there's no indication of how this tool differs in context or scope, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions pagination support. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a tool that likely returns a large dataset, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all available UNII codes') and includes essential context ('in the DailyMed database with pagination support'). There is zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what UNII codes are, the return format, or how to handle large result sets beyond pagination. For a tool with potential complexity in data retrieval, more context is needed.
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 fully documents the two parameters (page and pageSize). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying pagination, which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'all available UNII codes in the DailyMed database', making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_uniis' by implying this retrieves all codes rather than searching, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.
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 like 'search_uniis' or other 'get_all_' tools. The description mentions pagination support but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format (e.g., structure of links), or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves network operations and file access.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get download links for ZIP and PDF files') without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and structured for quick comprehension.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return values (e.g., what the download links look like, any metadata), behavioral traits, or error handling. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single 'setId' parameter. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond implying it's for a drug, which is already covered by the schema's description. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.
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 the action ('Get download links') and the resource ('ZIP and PDF files of a specific drug by its SET ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_drug_media' or 'get_drug_details', which might also involve file retrieval, so it lacks sibling distinction for a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_drug_media' or other sibling tools that might handle files. It implies usage for a specific drug by SET ID but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling, leaving significant behavioral gaps for an agent to understand.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, efficiently stating the purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action.
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?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, the response structure, or potential errors, making it inadequate for an agent to fully utilize the tool.
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?
The description adds minimal semantics by specifying the parameter is a SET ID for the drug, but the input schema already has 100% coverage with a clear description. No additional details like format or examples are provided, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific drug', specifying it's by SET ID. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_all_drug_names' or 'search_drugs_by_pharmacologic_class' by focusing on details for a single drug, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a SET ID from another tool, or compare it to siblings like 'get_drug_history' or 'get_drug_ndcs' that might offer different details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'version history' but doesn't clarify what that entails—whether it returns metadata, change logs, timestamps, or structured data. It also omits information about permissions, rate limits, or response format, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it optimally concise and well-structured.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns historical data. It doesn't explain what 'version history' includes, how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., pagination, availability). For a tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves critical gaps in understanding.
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?
The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the input schema, which already has 100% coverage with a clear parameter description for 'setId'. The description reinforces that 'setId' identifies 'a specific drug' but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or validation rules. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 the action ('Get version history') and target resource ('for a specific drug by its SET ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_drug_details' or 'search_spls' that might also provide historical information, preventing a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get_drug_details', 'search_spls'), there's no indication of whether this is the primary method for accessing drug history or if other tools might serve overlapping purposes. The lack of usage context is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves media links but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned links. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information—action and resource—with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and structured to convey the essential purpose immediately.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the media links look like, how they're returned, or any behavioral traits like side effects. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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?
The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It mentions the parameter 'SET ID' but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with extra semantic details.
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 the action ('Get media links') and resource ('for a specific drug by its SET ID'), specifying what types of media (images, documents) are retrieved. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_drug_details' or 'get_download_links' by focusing on media links, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid SET ID, or compare to similar tools like 'get_download_links' or 'get_drug_details', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' NDC codes, implying a read operation, but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., list format, pagination), error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration—every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (e.g., NDC code format, multiple codes per drug), error handling, or usage constraints. For a tool with no structured behavioral or output documentation, the description should provide more operational context.
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?
The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the input schema. It mentions 'by its SET ID', which aligns with the 'setId' parameter in the schema (100% coverage). However, it doesn't explain what a SET ID represents, provide format examples, or clarify if it's a unique identifier. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 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 the tool's purpose: 'Get NDC codes for a specific drug by its SET ID'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('NDC codes'), and key constraint ('by its SET ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_ndcs' or 'search_drugs_by_pharmacologic_class', which would require a 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (like 'get_all_ndcs' for all NDCs or 'search_drugs_by_pharmacologic_class' for different search criteria), there's no indication of when this specific SET ID-based lookup is appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves packaging information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like rate limits, error handling, authentication needs, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that likely returns structured data. It doesn't explain what packaging information includes (e.g., types, formats) or how results are presented, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'setId' clearly documented. The description adds minimal value by reiterating the parameter's purpose ('by its SET ID'), but doesn't provide additional context such as format examples or constraints beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('packaging information for a specific drug'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on packaging info, unlike tools like 'get_drug_details' or 'get_drug_ndcs'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'get_drug_media', which might also provide related information.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the 'SET ID' parameter but doesn't explain when to choose this over other drug-related tools like 'get_drug_details' or 'get_drug_ndcs', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves mappings but gives no information about the format of the response, potential rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There is no wasted verbiage or structural fluff.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that likely returns complex mapping data. It doesn't explain what 'mappings' entail (e.g., cross-references to other drug identifiers), the response structure, or any behavioral traits like pagination or error handling. This leaves the agent with inadequate context for reliable use.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'rxcui' parameter clearly documented as 'The RxCUI to get mappings for'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on valid RxCUI formats. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
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 the action ('Get mappings') and the target resource ('for a specific RxCUI'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_all_rxcuis' or 'search_by_rxnorm_mapping' by focusing on mappings for a single identifier. However, it doesn't specify what type of mappings (e.g., to other drug codes) are retrieved, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get_rxnorm_mappings_by_pharmacologic_class', 'search_by_rxnorm_mapping'), there is no indication of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., format, depth). The mention of 'FDA context and classification attributes' adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation-free tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage hints from core functionality.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error cases, or behavioral traits, which are crucial for a tool that retrieves 'detailed information.' The mention of 'FDA context and classification attributes' is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing context.
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%, with the parameter 'pharmaSetId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it fetches details for a specific ID, which aligns with the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value from the description.
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 the action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a pharmacologic class'), specifying it includes FDA context and classification attributes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_all_pharmacologic_class_setids' by focusing on details for a specific ID rather than listing all IDs, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives for similar detail tools.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'uses mapping file data,' but this is vague and doesn't clarify prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts. Siblings like 'get_drug_details' or 'get_pharmacologic_class_mappings_for_setid' are not addressed, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but reveals nothing about permissions required, rate limits, response format, pagination, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a data retrieval tool, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.
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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'pharmacologic class mappings' actually are, what format they return in, or any limitations of the retrieval. For a specialized medical data tool with many sibling alternatives, users need more context to use it correctly.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'setId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (it essentially restates the parameter's purpose). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 the action ('Get') and resource ('pharmacologic class mappings') with a specific scope ('for a specific SET ID'), which distinguishes it from general mapping tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its closest sibling 'get_rxnorm_mappings_for_setid', which could cause confusion about which mapping type to use.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_all_pharmacologic_class_setids' (for listing SET IDs) or 'get_rxnorm_mappings_for_setid' (for different mapping types). There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Find') but does not cover aspects like rate limits, error handling, response format, or data scope (e.g., whether it returns all mappings or a subset). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., format, structure of mappings) or behavioral traits like performance or limitations. For a tool with no structured support, more detail is needed to fully inform usage.
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?
The description mentions 'pharmacologic class SET ID', which aligns with the single parameter 'pharmaSetId' in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents the parameter adequately. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 the action ('Find RxNorm mappings') and the target ('drugs that belong to a specific pharmacologic class SET ID'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pharmacologic_class_mappings_for_setid' or 'get_rxnorm_mappings_for_setid', which might have overlapping functionality, so it lacks full sibling distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_pharmacologic_class_mappings_for_setid' or 'search_drugs_by_pharmacologic_class'. It mentions the parameter but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what RxNorm mappings are, what the output looks like, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool in a domain with many similar siblings, more context is needed to help an agent use it correctly.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'setId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameter beyond what's in the schema (e.g., what a SET ID represents, format examples, or valid ranges). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('RxNorm mappings'), and specifies the scope ('for a specific SET ID'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_mappings_by_rxcui' or 'get_pharmacologic_class_mappings_for_setid', which appear to be related mapping tools. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
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. With multiple sibling tools that involve mappings (e.g., 'get_mappings_by_rxcui', 'get_pharmacologic_class_mappings_for_setid'), the description offers no context about prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination support,' which is useful, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads key information: search functionality and pagination. It avoids redundancy and waste, though it could be slightly more structured by listing key parameters or use cases.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and pagination but lacks details on output format, error conditions, and usage context. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values, but it does not.
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 input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying parameter flexibility ('various parameters') and pagination, but does not explain interactions between parameters or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.
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 the tool's purpose: 'Search for RxCUI codes using various parameters with pagination support.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('RxCUI codes'), and scope ('various parameters with pagination'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_rxcuis' or 'search_drug_names,' which might have overlapping functionality.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'various parameters' but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'get_all_rxcuis' or other search tools exist, but no comparison or context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination support', which is useful, but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the search returns (e.g., format, structure). For a search tool with 7 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('search for UNII codes') and includes key behavioral detail ('pagination support'), making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 7 parameters. It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error handling, and the return format (e.g., what data fields are included). For a search tool in a complex domain (UNII codes), this leaves the agent under-informed.
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 fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'various parameters' and pagination, which are already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 the action ('search for UNII codes') and resource ('UNII codes'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_all_uniis' by specifying search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other search tools like 'search_drug_names' or 'search_rxcuis'.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from other search tools (e.g., 'search_drug_names' or 'search_rxcuis'), leaving the agent without contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool retrieves SET IDs with associated drug mappings, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a SET ID is, the format of the returned data (e.g., list, JSON structure), or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool in a complex domain with many siblings, more context is needed.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, focusing on the tool's purpose. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary repetition.
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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all pharmacologic class SET IDs', specifying they must have associated drug mappings. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_all_drug_classes' or 'get_pharmacologic_class_details' by focusing on SET IDs with mappings, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_pharmacologic_class_mappings_for_setid' which retrieves mappings for a specific SET ID.
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. For example, it doesn't explain if this should be used for bulk retrieval of SET IDs before detailed lookups with 'get_pharmacologic_class_mappings_for_setid' or 'get_pharmacologic_class_details', or how it differs from 'search_drugs_by_pharmacologic_class' which might involve SET IDs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves statistics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, response format, or whether it's safe for frequent use. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get statistics') and specifies the target ('loaded mapping files'), making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'statistics' entail (e.g., counts, types, formats) or how the results are structured, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior and output. For a tool with no structured support, more detail is needed.
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 has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it appropriately avoids redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce confusion.
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 the action ('Get') and resource ('statistics about loaded mapping files'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its many siblings (e.g., get_all_* tools) that also retrieve data, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.
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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., get_all_*, get_mappings_by_rxcui), the description lacks context about specific use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination support' which is useful, but doesn't describe other important traits: whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format looks like, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a search tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Search for pharmacologic drug classes') and adds two key qualifiers ('using various parameters' and 'with pagination support'). There's zero waste—every phrase contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at pagination, but lacks guidance on usage versus siblings, detailed behavioral context, or output expectations. For a search tool in a crowded namespace, more contextual information would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively.
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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'various parameters' and 'pagination support' (hinting at 'page' and 'pageSize'), but doesn't provide additional semantic context about how parameters interact or search behavior. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool's purpose: 'Search for pharmacologic drug classes using various parameters with pagination support.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('pharmacologic drug classes'), and mentions key capabilities ('various parameters', 'pagination support'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_all_drug_classes' or 'search_drugs_by_pharmacologic_class', which would require a 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (like 'get_all_drug_classes' for retrieving all classes without filtering, or 'search_drugs_by_pharmacologic_class' for a different search focus), the description lacks any 'when-to-use' context, prerequisites, or comparisons to help an agent choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'pagination support', which is useful behavioral context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it states the purpose and key features (parameters, pagination) without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose and pagination. It lacks details on behavioral traits and output, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a search tool with multiple parameters.
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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying 'various parameters' exist. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 the action ('Search for drug names') and resource ('drug names'), which is specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_drug_names' or 'search_drugs_by_pharmacologic_class', which would require a 5.
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?
The description mentions 'various parameters' and 'pagination support', which implies usage context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_all_drug_names' or other search tools. There are no when-not or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination support' which is useful, but doesn't describe other important behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the response format looks like (since there's no output schema). For a search tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that clearly communicates the core functionality. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose.
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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, search functionality), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what results look like, how pagination works in practice, or important behavioral constraints. For a search tool with multiple filtering options, users need more context about response format and limitations.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'various parameters' and 'pagination support' without providing additional semantic context. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.
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 the tool's purpose as searching for FDA application numbers with specific parameters and pagination support. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_all_application_numbers' by emphasizing search functionality rather than retrieval of all data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search tools like 'search_drug_names' or 'search_spls' beyond the resource type.
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?
The description implies usage for searching FDA application numbers with various parameters, suggesting it should be used when specific filtering is needed. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_all_application_numbers' (for unfiltered lists) or other search tools for different resources. No exclusion criteria 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination support, which is useful context not in the schema, but doesn't cover other important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the response format looks like. For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.
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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds important behavioral context (pagination). Both sentences earn their place, with no redundant or vague phrasing. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from constraints, but it's efficiently written.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and pagination behavior but lacks details on response format, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. For a search tool in this context, more guidance on outputs and alternatives would improve completeness.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies the drugClassCode comes from the drug classes API and mentions pagination, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
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 the tool's purpose: 'Search for drugs using DailyMed drug class codes'. It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('drugs'), and data source ('DailyMed drug class codes'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_drug_classes' or 'get_pharmacologic_class_details', which reduces clarity about its unique role.
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?
The description provides minimal guidance: it mentions using drug class codes from the drug classes API and supports pagination. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_drug_classes' or 'get_pharmacologic_class_mappings_for_setid', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual guidance leaves the agent uncertain about optimal usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination support', which is useful context, but fails to describe other key traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all available FDA application numbers') and adds necessary context ('with pagination support'). There is no wasted wording, and it effectively communicates key information in a compact form.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and hints at behavior (pagination), but doesn't address return values, error handling, or other contextual details needed for full understanding, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's effective use.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'page' and 'pageSize' parameters including defaults and constraints. The description adds value by mentioning 'pagination support', which contextualizes the parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already covers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 the action ('Get all available') and resource ('FDA application numbers in the DailyMed database'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_application_numbers', which might retrieve similar data with filtering, so it misses full sibling distinction.
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?
The description implies usage for retrieving all application numbers with pagination, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_application_numbers' or other 'get_all_' siblings. It mentions pagination support, which hints at context for large datasets, but lacks clear when/when-not statements or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying 'pagination support', which indicates the tool handles large result sets, but does not cover other aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of returned data. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all available drug classes') and includes key behavioral context ('with pagination support'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and pagination behavior but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement in completeness.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'page' and 'pageSize' parameters with defaults and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how pagination works in practice. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all available drug classes in the DailyMed database', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_drug_classes', which might be used for filtered queries instead of retrieving all classes.
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?
The description mentions 'pagination support', which implies usage for large datasets, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_drug_classes' or other 'get_all_' siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination support, which is a key behavioral trait not inferable from the schema alone. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, size). This leaves gaps for a tool with potential large datasets.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all available drug names') and includes essential behavioral detail ('with pagination support'). There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly addresses what the tool does without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a list operation with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the action and pagination but lacks details on output format, error cases, or usage context. For a tool that likely returns large datasets, more completeness would be beneficial to guide the agent effectively.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear details on 'page' and 'pageSize' parameters. The description adds value by mentioning 'pagination support,' which contextualizes why these parameters exist, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 the action ('Get all available drug names') and resource ('DailyMed database'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_drug_details' or 'search_drug_names' by specifying it retrieves all names with pagination, though it could more explicitly differentiate from 'get_all_ndcs' or similar list tools by emphasizing it's for drug names only.
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. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'search_drug_names' for filtered queries or other sibling tools like 'get_all_ndcs' for different data types. The description implies usage for bulk retrieval but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions getting 'comprehensive information,' but doesn't detail what that entails—e.g., format of the response, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Get comprehensive information') and covers purpose and usage hints. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by separating purpose from usage more clearly) to enhance readability, keeping it from a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and hints at usage, but lacks details on behavioral traits and output format, which are important for a tool providing 'comprehensive information.' With no output schema, the description should ideally elaborate on return values, but it doesn't, leaving gaps in completeness.
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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for such cases is 4, as the description appropriately avoids redundant information and focuses on the tool's purpose without misalignment with the schema.
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 the tool's purpose: to 'Get comprehensive information about DailyMed database, its purpose, content types, and when to use it.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive information about DailyMed database'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_download_links' or 'get_mapping_statistics,' which might also provide database-related information, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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?
The description includes 'when to use it,' which implies guidance on usage context, but it's vague and not explicit. It doesn't specify when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs. 'get_drug_details' for specific drug info or 'get_download_links' for data access), nor does it outline prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves usage somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior ('with pagination support'), which is valuable beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, total count). It adds some context but is incomplete for a list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes key behavioral detail (pagination). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (list operation with 2 optional params) and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but has gaps. No output schema exists, so the description should ideally hint at return format (e.g., list of NDC strings). It covers pagination but misses other contextual details like ordering or total result availability, making it minimally viable.
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 fully documents both parameters (page, pageSize). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying pagination exists. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't compensate for any gaps (none exist).
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get all available NDC codes'), identifies the resource ('DailyMed database'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'all available NDC codes' rather than drug-specific NDCs (like get_drug_ndcs) or other list types. It's precise and avoids tautology.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over search tools (e.g., search_drugs_by_pharmacologic_class) or other 'get_all_' siblings, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination support, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format/scope of returned data (e.g., whether it includes metadata or just codes).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential behavioral context (pagination). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a read-only list tool. It covers the purpose and pagination but lacks details on response format, total count availability, or error conditions. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.
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 fully documents the two parameters (page and pageSize). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying pagination, which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get all available RxCUI codes'), the resource ('in the DailyMed database'), and includes a key behavioral trait ('with pagination support'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_rxcuis' by emphasizing retrieval of all codes rather than searching/filtering.
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?
The description implies usage for retrieving all RxCUI codes with pagination, which differentiates it from search tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_rxcuis' or 'get_mappings_by_rxcui', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the two search modes (simple vs. advanced), the indirect drug-first approach for simple queries, and pagination support for large result sets. It lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format, but covers essential operational traits adequately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise explanations of the two search modes and pagination support. Each sentence earns its place by adding critical information without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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?
Given the high parameter count (20), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining search modes and pagination. However, it lacks details on response format, error conditions, or authentication needs, which are important for a search tool with many parameters. It is mostly complete but has minor gaps.
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 20 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by explaining the high-level distinction between simple (using 'query') and advanced (using other parameters) modes, but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema offers, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for Structured Product Labels (SPLs)' using either simple drug name search or advanced DailyMed API parameters. It specifies the resource (SPLs) and distinguishes between two search modes, making it highly specific and differentiated from sibling tools that focus on individual data types like application numbers or drug names.
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?
The description provides clear context on when to use different modes: 'When using simple query, searches for drugs first then finds related SPLs. When using advanced parameters, queries DailyMed SPLs API directly.' It implies usage scenarios but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling search tools (e.g., search_drug_names) or list exclusions, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![dailymed-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RowanErasmus/dailymed-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RowanErasmus/dailymed-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![dailymed-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RowanErasmus/dailymed-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RowanErasmus/dailymed-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/RowanErasmus/dailymed-mcp-server'

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