Skip to main content
Glama

Read a weekly payer follow-up

payer_follow_up_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a weekly payer follow-up with the account ID and the access token returned when it was started: whether payment is settled, each application's status (not_checked, received, in_review, needs_documents, approved with its effective date, denied, no_record, or no_decision when the checks stopped without a decision, with the date it can be reopened until), whether we write and submit it (work: write_and_submit, with submitted_on empty until it is submitted) or it was already submitted (work: follow_up), what we still need from you before we submit one we write (waiting_on_you), the payer's reference or representative, missing documents, the last and next check, check_every_days, and the log of every check (date, method, who checked, what the payer said, and how many reads found the same answer); what is happening on each one right now (now_doing: one line read from the records our checks leave, such as on hold with the payer's line, asked by email and waiting for the reply, or the payer's status page read, with that record's time and live true while it happens); each message sent to the payer about it (receipts: a status email, an automated call or the written application, each with sent, arrived and answered); another open application for the same clinician, payer and state, one that may have been started twice (overlaps); for one we write, where its submission stands (submission: step, channel email, fax, mail or web, and clinician_to_do when the clinician must sign or submit in the payer's own system); the roster's changes from weekly monitoring; the deadlines within 30 and 90 days; for an application bundle, the steps only a clinician can do for the applications we write (clinician_tasks: each step, its status upcoming, to_do, said_done or done, its deadline, the applications it is for, and contact_needed when we cannot reach the clinician); and the status webhook (webhook: its url and updated_at, or null; never its secret).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_idYesThe account_id payer_follow_up_request returned.
access_tokenYesThe access_token payer_follow_up_request returned (shown once), or the token in an emailed status link.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / account_id / description
      Added value: +"The account_id payer_follow_up_request returned."
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that — the webhook object 'never its secret', the token being shown once, and the meaning of 'live true' and 'submitted_on empty until submitted' — but says nothing about token expiry, failure modes, or rate limits.

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?

placeholder

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 carries the full return-value burden and does so exhaustively: every status enum, work modes, waiting_on_you, now_doing, receipts, overlaps, submission, clinician_tasks and webhook are enumerated. What is missing is auth/expiry failure behavior and the fact that a stale or revoked token will error, but the response contract itself is unusually complete.

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% and both properties are documented with format, pattern and provenance. The description repeats that the account ID and token come from payer_follow_up_request and adds only that the token may instead come from an emailed status link, which is already in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a weekly payer follow-up') plus the two identifiers needed, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It never distinguishes itself from adjacent reads in the family (payer_follow_up_documents, payer_follow_up_signers, prior_authorization_status), leaving sibling routing to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: it says the call needs the account ID and access token 'returned when it was started', which tells the agent a prior payer_follow_up_request must exist, but it never states when to call this versus the document, signer, or reopen siblings, and gives no exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources