Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenFDA MCP Server

OpenFDA MCP Server

by colbyw5
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

search_device_510k

Find medical devices cleared by FDA via 510(k) premarket notification. Query by applicant, date, or device type with pagination and counting.

Instructions

Search FDA 510(k) premarket clearance data for medical devices.

Args: search: openFDA query (e.g. 'applicant:"medtronic"'). limit: Max results (1-1000). skip: Offset for pagination. count: Field to count.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_device_510k"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
skipNo
countNo
limitNo
searchNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. Description implies read-only search but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or data update frequency. 'Search' suggests safe operation, but lacks explicit behavioral context.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Description is concise with a front-loaded purpose and parameter explanations. Six lines total, each informative. Could be slightly more streamlined but no unnecessary content.

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?

Output schema exists, so return value explanation not required. Parameter details are adequate for use. However, missing context on API limits or error handling, but given tool complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning to each parameter: e.g., search is an 'openFDA query' with example, limit has range (1-1000), skip is pagination offset, count is 'Field to count'. Adds value beyond schema types and defaults.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Search' and resource 'FDA 510(k) premarket clearance data'. Distinguishes from sibling tools that target other drug/device data types.

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 specifies the data source (510k) and provides an example query, implying usage for that specific data type. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_device_classifications or search_device_adverse_events.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools