GoodRx MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: compare_prices focuses on price comparison across pharmacies, find_pharmacies locates nearby pharmacies, get_coupon retrieves discount coupon details, get_prices provides pricing at nearby pharmacies, and search_drug searches for drug information. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'goodrx_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., goodrx_compare_prices, goodrx_find_pharmacies), using snake_case and starting with the server prefix. This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for its purpose of accessing GoodRx drug pricing and pharmacy services. Each tool serves a specific, necessary function without redundancy, making the count appropriate and manageable.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core GoodRx workflows: searching drugs, finding pharmacies, getting prices, comparing prices, and obtaining coupons. A minor gap is the lack of tools for managing user accounts or prescription history, but the essential operations for price comparison and coupon retrieval are fully covered.
Average 3.1/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool uses GoodRx and compares prices, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this requires authentication, rate limits, what the output format looks like, if it returns real-time or cached data, or any error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a price comparison tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, whether authentication is needed, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool that presumably returns complex pharmacy pricing data, the description should provide more context about the output and behavioral characteristics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions comparing drug prices but doesn't elaborate on parameter relationships or usage patterns. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Compare drug prices across multiple pharmacies to find the best deal using GoodRx.' It specifies the action (compare), resource (drug prices), and scope (across multiple pharmacies). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'goodrx_get_prices' or 'goodrx_search_drug', which likely have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'goodrx_get_prices' and 'goodrx_search_drug' available, there's no indication of how this comparison tool differs or when it should be preferred over those options. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get GoodRx discount prices' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what the output format looks like (especially since there's no output schema). For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, well-structured sentence: 'Get GoodRx discount prices for a drug at nearby pharmacies.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, avoids redundancy, and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., read-only vs. mutation, error handling), usage guidelines relative to siblings, and output information. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't add enough context to compensate for missing annotations and output schema, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description implies parameters like 'drug' and 'nearby pharmacies' (mapping to 'drug_name' and 'zip_code'), but it doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately documents all parameters (e.g., 'drug_name', 'dosage', 'quantity', 'zip_code', 'form'). The description doesn't compensate with additional context like parameter interactions or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get GoodRx discount prices for a drug at nearby pharmacies.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('GoodRx discount prices'), and scope ('for a drug at nearby pharmacies'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'goodrx_compare_prices' or 'goodrx_find_pharmacies', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., 'goodrx_compare_prices', 'goodrx_find_pharmacies', 'goodrx_get_coupon', 'goodrx_search_drug'). It doesn't mention prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool finds pharmacies that 'accept GoodRx discount coupons,' which implies a read-only search operation, but doesn't disclose other traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of pharmacies with details). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose clearly but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. With no output schema, the description doesn't explain return values, leaving gaps in completeness. It meets the baseline for a simple search tool but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (zip_code, pharmacy_name, radius_miles) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying location-based searching and GoodRx acceptance, which is already covered by the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find pharmacies near a location that accept GoodRx discount coupons.' It specifies the action (find), resource (pharmacies), and key constraint (accept GoodRx coupons). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'goodrx_compare_prices' or 'goodrx_search_drug', which might also involve pharmacy-related searches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'goodrx_compare_prices' or 'goodrx_get_prices', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool searches for pricing information, forms, and dosages, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what specific data is returned (e.g., whether it includes pharmacy locations or coupon details). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with 3 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and return values, which are important for a search tool in a domain with multiple sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of drug names or how dosage and quantity affect results. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('search for a prescription drug') and the resource ('GoodRx'), specifying the purpose to find pricing information, forms, and dosages. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'goodrx_compare_prices' or 'goodrx_get_prices', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't achieve full distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'goodrx_compare_prices' or 'goodrx_get_prices'. It states what the tool does but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return values (BIN, PCN, Group, and Member ID) but does not cover other critical aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 and adds necessary detail about return values in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and return values but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and usage context. Without an output schema, it should ideally explain more about the return format, but it does specify the key fields needed at checkout, which is helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints not in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
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 action ('Get a GoodRx discount coupon') and the resource ('for a specific drug at a pharmacy'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'goodrx_compare_prices' or 'goodrx_get_prices' by focusing on coupon retrieval rather than price comparison or general price lookup.
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 when a discount coupon is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'goodrx_compare_prices' or 'goodrx_get_prices'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-goodrx MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/markswendsen-code/mcp-goodrx/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/markswendsen-code/mcp-goodrx)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-goodrx MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/markswendsen-code/mcp-goodrx/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/markswendsen-code/mcp-goodrx)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/markswendsen-code/mcp-goodrx'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server