JMPR — Pesticide Safety Evaluations (FAO/WHO)

Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADI) and Acute Reference Doses (ARfD) set by the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues — the toxicological assessment that every Codex pesticide limit is derived from.

Part of Pipeworx — an MCP gateway connecting AI agents to 1573+ live data sources.

Tools

Tool	What it answers
jmpr_search	Find a pesticide by name or fragment
jmpr_chemical	Full evaluation: ADI, ARfD, CAS, chemical class, use, every meeting's conclusions and report links
jmpr_list_pesticides	All 382 pesticides JMPR has evaluated

The three-pack picture

Pack	Question
jmpr (this)	Is this pesticide safe, and at what daily intake?
codex-mrl	What residue level is legally permitted in each food?
jecfa	The same two questions for additives and veterinary drugs

The gaps between them carry meaning. Chlorpyrifos is the worked example: Codex revoked its residue limits, so codex-mrl has no record of it at all — while JMPR still holds the evaluation, and the 2024 entry says why: the toxicological database was insufficient to establish health-based guidance values. Neither pack alone tells that story; codex-mrl would report a bare absence.

Coverage

382 pesticides. Evaluations run from the 1960s to the present, newest first.

Auth

None. Keyless, no registration, no quota.

Data source

https://apps.who.int/pesticide-residues-jmpr-database/ — server-rendered HTML, no API. Two shapes: /Home/Range/All lists every pesticide, /pesticide?name=NAME is one record. Names are the identifier — there are no numeric ids, so a name that doesn't match exactly renders an empty shell rather than a 404, which is why both detail lookups resolve against the catalogue first.

Gotchas

1. A blank ADI is a finding, not a gap. The evaluation table has an ADI column that is often empty, and dropping those rows or treating them as "no data" inverts the meaning. Chlorpyrifos 2024 has no ADI because the meeting judged the toxicological data insufficient — and the reason sits in the Comments cell of that same row. When a pesticide has been evaluated but carries no ADI anywhere, jmpr_chemical says so in note.

2. The newest evaluation is not always the newest ADI. A re-evaluation can decline to set a value while the previous one still stands, so current_adi / current_adi_year are tracked separately from latest_evaluation_year. For chlorpyrifos those are 2004 and 2024 respectively.

3. Absence from this database means never evaluated. That is different from "evaluated and found unsafe" — the no_match hints say which, because an agent reading a bare empty result will assume the stronger claim.

4. Parent compounds and variants are separate records with different ADIs (CHLORPYRIFOS vs CHLORPYRIFOS-METHYL). A fragment that matches several returns all of them flagged ambiguous rather than picking one; an exact name still resolves outright.

5. Document links are mixed relative and absolute — ./Document/297 on the WHO host, or a full FAO URL. Both are resolved to absolute.

Quick Start

Add to your MCP client (Claude Desktop, Cursor, Windsurf, etc.):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "jmpr": {
      "url": "https://gateway.pipeworx.io/jmpr/mcp"
    }
  }
}

What this endpoint actually serves

tools/list at https://gateway.pipeworx.io/jmpr/mcp returns the tools in the table above plus the shared Pipeworx meta-tools — ask_pipeworx, discover_tools, search_within, remember/recall and the rest of the gateway-wide set. So the tool count you see is larger than this table: a single-pack endpoint currently lists roughly 30 shared tools alongside the pack's own. The connection's initialize response states its exact scope, and is the authoritative answer for a given day.

This is deliberate, not multiplexing by accident. The meta-tools are what let a scoped connection answer a question this pack does not cover — via ask_pipeworx, which routes across the whole catalog — without you adding a second MCP server. There is currently no way to mount a pack endpoint without them; if the extra schemas cost you more context than the routing is worth, connect to the full gateway once rather than to several pack endpoints.

Or connect to the full Pipeworx gateway to get every pack's tools listed directly, instead of just this one's:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "pipeworx": {
      "url": "https://gateway.pipeworx.io/mcp"
    }
  }
}

Both URLs reach the same gateway and the same 1573+ data sources. The only difference is which pack's tools are listed directly; ask_pipeworx reaches all of them from either one.

Standalone (no gateway account)

This package also runs as a local stdio MCP server — no Pipeworx account, no gateway round-trip:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "jmpr": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@pipeworx/mcp-jmpr"]
    }
  }
}

Or run it directly to confirm it starts:

npx -y @pipeworx/mcp-jmpr

It speaks MCP over stdin/stdout and answers initialize/tools/list/tools/call for only this pack's tools — none of the shared meta-tools the gateway connection above adds. Same source, same tools, no ask_pipeworx routing.

Using with ask_pipeworx

Instead of calling tools directly, you can ask questions in plain English — this works on the pack endpoint above as well as on the full gateway:

ask_pipeworx({ question: "your question about Jmpr data" })

The gateway picks the right tool and fills the arguments automatically.

More

• Docs and guides
• pipeworx.io

License

MIT