Retrieve recent FDA drug recall enforcement reports by drug name to check classification, reason, and status, helping assess safety risks.
Recent FDA drug recalls (enforcement reports) matching a drug name, with classification (Class I is most serious), reason and status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| drug | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses returned fields (classification with the Class I severity meaning, reason, status) and that results are 'recent' enforcement reports, but it says nothing about pagination, result ordering, rate limits, or matching strictness.
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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the discriminating context (recency, classification severity, returned fields). No filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail need not be repeated, but with no annotations and 0% schema coverage the description leaves real gaps: what 'recent' means, how 'limit' behaves, and whether results are sorted by date. Adequate to call, not complete.
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 0%, so the description has to compensate. It clarifies that 'drug' is used as a name-matching filter and that records are recent, but it leaves 'limit' (default 5) and the exact-match vs substring semantics of 'drug' entirely undocumented.
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 resource (FDA drug recall enforcement reports) and scope (recent, matching a drug name), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_adverse_events and search_drug_labels. The retrieval verb is only implicit ('matching'), so it stops just short of a fully explicit verb+resource statement.
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?
Usage is implied by the drug-name matching scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_adverse_events or search_drug_labels instead, and no note on result-volume limits or recency window. An agent can infer the use case but gets no routing rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.