portugal-mcp

medicine_availability

Check whether a medicine is in shortage in Portugal by searching Infarmed's published availability, export-suspension, and prior-notification lists using a brand or active substance.

Instructions

Is a medicine in shortage in Portugal? Checks Infarmed's published availability information.

Use when someone can't find a medicine, or asks whether X is in shortage ("rutura", "esgotado", "falta"). Searches by brand or active substance (Portuguese names work best, e.g. "quetiapina", "Ozempic", "ácido acetilsalicílico"; dose and form narrow it, e.g. "quetiapina 300 mg libertação prolongada").

Checks, all from www.infarmed.pt (latest versions are found automatically):

shortages Infarmed is actively monitoring (with its circulars and advice);
the monthly list of medicines whose export is temporarily suspended because of shortage / supply risk in Portugal;
the quarterly prior-notification list (LNP) of medicines with availability concerns.

status is one or more of: monitored_shortage, export_suspended, prior_notification, no_issue_in_published_lists. "No issue" does not prove the medicine is available: Infarmed's full shortage search is not queried (see not_checked).

Args: medicine: Brand name or active substance, optionally with strength/form. limit: Max rows returned per list (default 15).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`medicine`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the source (www.infarmed.pt), the three lists checked, automatic latest-version behavior, supported status values, and the important limitation that Infarmed's full shortage search is not queried. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error handling, keeping it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core question and then structured into source details, status values, and arguments. It is somewhat long, but for a multi-list availability check most sentences earn their place; the structure is clear and scannable.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity, the description is complete enough to call it correctly: it explains sources, checked lists, status semantics, important limitations, and both parameters. Since an output schema exists, it does not need to document return structure in detail.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates with an Args section. It explains that 'medicine' accepts brand name or active substance, optionally with strength/form, and gives useful examples; it also clarifies that 'limit' caps rows per list.

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 states a specific question and verb ('Is a medicine in shortage in Portugal? Checks Infarmed's published availability information'), making the resource and scope clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby-stock or pharmacy-finding siblings such as find_medicine_near, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear usage triggers ('when someone can't find a medicine, or asks whether X is in shortage') and even lists Portuguese synonyms like 'rutura', 'esgotado', and 'falta'. It also warns that a 'no issue' result does not prove availability, but it does not name alternative sibling tools for locating stock nearby.

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