itemnumbers MBS schedule

Check item combination

check_item_combination

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare a set of MBS items for one occasion with the rules written in their descriptors, as schedule reference information: pairs the schedule says are not claimable together, time tiers met or missed, flags for assistant, anaesthetic and hospital-only items, and the multiple operation rule for Group T8 items with the resulting total of schedule fees (a schedule figure, not a patient charge). It reports what the descriptors say and never drops an item; it does not decide what should be billed. Rules the schedule words in ways that are not coded, such as exempt items, are not checked.

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": {
      "item_numbers": "<item_numbers>"
    },
    "name": "check_item_combination"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`durations`	No	Minutes the service lasted, only for items whose descriptor has a time tier.
`item_numbers`	Yes	The items performed on one occasion, 1 to 15 item numbers.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behaviour, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: results never drop an item, output is schedule reference information rather than a billing decision, and the fee total is 'a schedule figure, not a patient charge.' It does not describe output shape or how uncoded-rule gaps are surfaced in the response.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core verb and scope, then dense clauses that each carry distinct information (outputs enumerated, disclaimers, exclusions). The single long sentence becomes run-on, but no clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates what is returned and explicitly states two limits (no billing decision, uncoded rules unchecked). That is enough for an agent to call it correctly, with only error/edge behaviour for invalid item numbers left implicit.

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%, including the note that durations apply only to items with a time tier, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description's mention of 'time tiers met or missed' is consistent with that but adds no new syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 ('Compare a set of MBS items for one occasion with the rules written in their descriptors') and enumerates the checks performed (claimability pairs, time tiers, assistant/anaesthetic/hospital flags, Group T8 multiple operation rule, fee total). It is functionally unmistakable from the lookup siblings, though it never names an alternative tool to reinforce the distinction.

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?

Clearly scopes the call to items performed on one occasion and states an important negative: 'it does not decide what should be billed.' It also discloses a class of rules that are out of scope ('Rules the schedule words in ways that are not coded, such as exempt items, are not checked'). No sibling alternative is named, so it falls short of full when/when-not routing.

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

All itemnumbers MBS schedule tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?