Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BioMCP

BioMCP

by genomoncology
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust

openfda_approval_getter

Retrieve FDA drug approval details, including product lists, submission history, marketing status, therapeutic equivalence codes, and pharmacologic class info, using an application number.

Instructions

Get detailed FDA drug approval information for a specific application.

Returns comprehensive approval details including:
- Full product list with dosage forms and strengths
- Complete submission history
- Marketing status timeline
- Therapeutic equivalence codes
- Pharmacologic class information

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "application_number": "<application_number>"
    },
    "name": "openfda_approval_getter"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyNoOptional OpenFDA API key (overrides OPENFDA_API_KEY env var)
application_numberYesNDA or BLA application number

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by listing what information is returned (e.g., product list, submission history), which helps understand the output. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond the optional api_key parameter.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a bulleted list of return details that efficiently elaborates without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by adding specific value.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description is complete enough for a read-only tool. It covers the purpose, key parameters, and output scope. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context like error cases or rate limits.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds value by clarifying that 'application_number' refers to 'NDA or BLA application number', providing context beyond the schema's title. No additional parameter details are needed, but this semantic clarification is helpful.

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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get detailed FDA drug approval information') and resource ('for a specific application'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'openfda_approval_searcher' which likely searches across applications rather than retrieving details for one.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage by specifying 'for a specific application', suggesting it should be used when you have a known application number. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., vs. 'openfda_approval_searcher' for broader searches).

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

Related Tools