Zorgverzekering.chat: Dutch health insurance

Get policy details

get_polis

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the full record of one basic policy (basisverzekering) or one supplementary or dental package (aanvullende verzekering, tandartsverzekering): premiums per deductible level or age band, reimbursement of non-contracted care, coverage per taxonomy category (dekkingen: maximum amount, percentage, number of treatments, period; a line with variant true is an extra line under its category, with the insurer's own name in rubriek, and does not count in calculations or comparisons), waiting period (wachttijd), acceptance rules (acceptatie), gesloten (true: package no longer available to new customers; existing policyholders keep it), a summary in the requested language and a source id per field that get_bron can quote. Provides information, not advice: the user makes the decision and signs up with the insurer themselves.

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": {
      "polisId": "<polisId>"
    },
    "name": "get_polis"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`taal`	No	Response language: nl (Dutch, default) or en (English).	nl
`polisId`	Yes	Policy id (polisId) of a basic policy or supplementary package, e.g. '2027-vgz-natura', as returned by the search tools.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`meta`	Yes
`acties`	Yes
`bronnen`	Yes
`aannames`	Yes
`samenvatting`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description does add real domain behavior beyond them: variant=true lines sit under a category but must be excluded from calculations/comparisons, gesloten=true means closed to new customers while existing policyholders retain it, and it sets a scope boundary ('information, not advice'). That is solid added value, though nothing is said about error behavior for unknown or unavailable polisIds.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler, but the body is one long run-on sentence with a deeply nested parenthetical on dekkingen/variant that is hard to parse on first read. A short bulleted breakdown of the returned components would preserve the content with far less cognitive load.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a rich single-record read tool with an output schema, an annotated safety profile, and fully described parameters, this is complete: it explains the meaning of non-obvious flags (variant, gesloten), states the source-id/get_bron linkage, and sets scope expectations. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both polisId and taal are already documented with format, example, and enum. The description adds only indirect meaning — that the summary comes back 'in the requested language' — without new syntax or constraints, so the baseline of 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Returns the full record of one basic policy ... or one supplementary or dental package') and enumerates the returned components: premiums per deductible/age band, non-contracted care reimbursement, dekkingen, wachttijd, acceptatie, gesloten, summary, and per-field source id. An agent can immediately separate this single-record detail lookup from the zoek_*/vergelijk_* siblings.

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 implied rather than stated: the singular record plus the note that each field carries a source id 'that get_bron can quote' signals a follow-up lookup role and a cross-tool workflow. However, the description never says to obtain polisId from zoek_basisverzekeringen/zoek_aanvullende_pakketten first (that hint lives only in the schema), nor when to prefer this over vergelijk_polissen or bereken_jaarkosten.

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

All Zorgverzekering.chat: Dutch health insurance 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?