Skip to main content
Glama
nickjlamb

PubCrawl

by nickjlamb
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

compare_labels

Read-only

Compare US FDA Prescribing Information against UK/EU SmPC sections side-by-side, returning paired verbatim content and explaining any missing or truncated sections.

Instructions

Compare US FDA Prescribing Information vs UK/EU SmPC for a drug side-by-side. Maps equivalent sections (e.g., US Indications ↔ UK 4.1) and returns paired verbatim content. A missing side is always explained: us_label/uk_label say whether the label was retrieved, each comparison notes why a section is null, and sections cut at the engine's length cap are flagged truncated.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
drugYesDrug name to compare across US and UK labelling
uk_drugNoName to use for the UK lookup when it differs from `drug` — brands often do (Farxiga/Forxiga, Prilosec/Losec). Defaults to `drug`.
us_drugNoName to use for the US lookup when it differs from `drug` (e.g. a US-only brand). Defaults to `drug`.
sectionsNoSpecific topics to compare (e.g., ['indications', 'adverse reactions']). Compares all mapped sections if omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.6.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / uk_drug
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Name to use for the UK lookup when it differs from `drug` — brands often do (Farxiga/Forxiga, Prilosec/Losec). Defaults to `drug`.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / us_drug
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Name to use for the US lookup when it differs from `drug` (e.g. a US-only brand). Defaults to `drug`.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv2.5.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's added value is in output behavior: it discloses that a missing side is always explained, that null sections carry a reason, and that length-capped sections are flagged truncated. That is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about rate limits or retrieval failures.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by mapping mechanics and then failure/truncation semantics. No sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does real work by explaining the returned structure (paired verbatim content, section mapping, null explanations, truncation flags). It is close to complete, though it omits any note on result size or how many sections are mapped by default.

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 four parameters including the brand-name divergence cases. The description adds no syntax or format detail for the parameters themselves, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Compare US FDA Prescribing Information vs UK/EU SmPC for a drug side-by-side.' It also names the section-mapping behavior, which distinguishes it from the read-only siblings get_uspi and get_smpc.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The comparison framing implies when to reach for this tool rather than the single-jurisdiction get_uspi/get_smpc siblings, and the 'sections' parameter documents scoping. However, it never explicitly tells the agent to prefer get_uspi or get_smpc when only one side is needed, so no true exclusions are given.

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