Query official US openFDA drug, device, and food recall enforcement reports to monitor safety actions, identify recalled products, and support compliance checks with configurable category and result limits.
Query official US openFDA drug, medical device, and food recall enforcement reports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Recall category (drug, device, food). | drug |
| maxResults | No | Maximum recall reports to return. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It never says the operation is read-only, does not mention openFDA rate limits or pagination, and does not disclose that results are limited to the default category unless overridden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the source ('official US openFDA') plus the resource are stated first. It is efficient, though brevity here shades into under-specification rather than true completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a defaulted category parameter, the description says nothing about what a report contains (classification, reason, distribution) or that omitting category silently returns drug recalls only. An agent could call it correctly but would misjudge the returned scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's enumeration of drug, device, and food reinforces the category values but adds no syntax, default behavior, or result-cap semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Query') and a specific resource ('official US openFDA drug, medical device, and food recall enforcement reports'), which is distinguishable from the nearby fda_warning_letters_compliance_scraper and global_product_recalls_monitor. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the two closest alternatives (global product recalls, FDA warning letters). The word 'official' hints at authoritative-source preference, but the agent gets no routing criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.