Skip to main content
Glama

Vitena Directory

by care.vitena

Search health professionals

search_providers
Read-onlyIdempotent

Searches the public Vitena directory of health and wellness professionals who accept appointments (dietitians, dentists, physiotherapists, psychologists, beauty and aesthetics practitioners, child development specialists). Every filter is optional; with no filters it returns the first page of all publicly listed professionals. Results are public profile data only. Each result includes a profileUrl that can be given to the user for booking.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityNoDeprecated alias for 'location', kept so agents that learned the older argument name keep working. Prefer 'location'.
pageNo1-based page number. Page size is fixed at 20.
countryNoTwo-letter ISO country code, e.g. 'TR', 'ES', 'DE'. Narrows an ambiguous place name. Valid values come from 'countries' in list_directory_filters.
languageNoTwo-letter language code the professional consults in, e.g. 'es', 'tr'.
locationNoCity, district or region name in free text, e.g. 'Istanbul', 'Kadıköy', 'Madrid', 'Andalucía'. Resolved against a place gazetteer, so it does NOT have to match a fixed list and is NOT returned by list_directory_filters — pass the place the user actually named. Choosing a region matches everywhere inside it. An unrecognised place returns an explanatory error rather than silently ignoring the filter.
workModeNoConsultation mode. 'online' for remote, 'in_person' for on-site.
disciplineNoProfession to filter by. One of: dietitian, psychologist, physiotherapist, beauty, child-development, dentist, other.
specializationNoSpecialization CODE (not label) as returned by list_directory_filters.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are public profile data only, appointment-accepting professionals are included, and each result contains a profileUrl for booking. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose and scope, filter default behavior, and result usage. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded and there is no 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?

For a search tool with rich schema descriptions and safety annotations, the description adequately explains scope, default behavior, and result usability. It could be slightly stronger by naming the sibling tools explicitly, but nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 all eight parameters are individually documented. The description mostly restates that filters are optional and describes overall result behavior, adding little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Searches the public Vitena directory of health and wellness professionals.' It names the disciplines covered and clarifies this is a directory search, which distinguishes it from get_provider and list_directory_filters.

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?

It clearly explains that all filters are optional and that an unfiltered call returns the first page of all public listings, plus the practical follow-up of giving the profileUrl to the user. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with get_provider or list_directory_filters, leaving that routing largely to inference.

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

All Vitena Directory toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing filter vocabulary, searching for providers, and retrieving a single provider's full profile. There is no meaningful overlap between them.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names follow a lowercase snake_case verb-first pattern: get_provider, list_directory_filters, search_providers. The verbs and object granularity vary slightly, but the style is consistent and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for a read-only directory server: discover filters, search providers, and fetch details. Each tool earns its place and the small set matches the narrow domain.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full read-only directory workflow: getting valid filter values, searching the directory, and retrieving detailed profiles. No write operations are needed, and there are no obvious dead ends for an agent.

Resources