Retrieve and monitor consumer product safety recall alerts from US CPSC, USDA FSIS, and EU Safety Gate (RAPEX), filtered by source and result limit for compliance and risk tracking.
Monitor consumer product safety recalls across US CPSC, USDA FSIS, and European Safety Gate (RAPEX) alerts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sources | No | Recall authorities (cpsc, fsis, eu). | |
| maxResults | No | Maximum recall alerts 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 behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether results are a live feed or a historical snapshot, how fresh the data is, or whether pagination exists. It also omits what a returned alert contains (product name, hazard, date, recall number). Only the coverage scope is disclosed.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope-defining sources are placed immediately after the verb. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the routing and behavior information an agent would want.
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?
The tool is simple (2 optional params, no nested objects), but there is no output schema, so the description should indicate what a result looks like and whether the feed is current. It also fails to resolve the overlap with the FDA recall sibling. For an unannotated read tool with no return-shape documentation, this is thin.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the source identifiers (cpsc, fsis, eu) and the maxResults cap. The description adds no syntax, default behavior, or filtering nuance beyond that. Baseline 3 applies 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a clear verb+resource ("Monitor consumer product safety recalls") and names the three specific authorities it covers (CPSC, FSIS, RAPEX/Safety Gate). An agent can tell it is a recall feed rather than a general compliance tool. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from the close sibling fda_recalls_enforcement_monitor, which covers a different regulator domain.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus the obvious alternative, fda_recalls_enforcement_monitor, or the fda_warning_letters_compliance_scraper sibling. Nothing says whether this is for consumer-product hazards only versus food/drug enforcement, leaving the agent to infer the boundary. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.