list_insurers
Read-onlyIdempotent
List tracked U.S. health insurers with whether verified CMS-0057-F prior-authorization metrics are available for each.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
coverage-rights
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds context about the specific data (CMS-0057-F metrics), providing useful detail beyond 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?
Single sentence effectively communicates purpose and scope, with no extraneous content.
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?
Description is complete for a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, though more explicit return structure would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so baseline 4 applies. Description adds value by indicating the output includes insurer names and availability flag.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists tracked U.S. health insurers and includes a specific metric availability flag, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on specific data retrieval.
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?
Usage is clear: use to get the list of insurers with metric availability. No explicit alternatives or exclusions, but context is sufficient given tool simplicity.
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.
TDQS
A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., get_appeal_rights vs. get_state_external_review), but get_condition_outcomes, get_treatment_outcomes, and get_drug_playbook overlap in the domain of external-review outcomes. An agent may confuse which to use for a given query, especially for drugs that appear in both drug_playbook and treatment_outcomes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_* for retrieval, list_* for enumeration, rank_* for rankings, and search_* for discovery. No mixed styles or inconsistent verb usage.
Tool Count5/5
Nine tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the coverage rights domain, and the count feels neither excessive nor thin.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the core workflow: determining appeal rights, researching outcomes by condition/treatment, accessing insurer metrics, and understanding state processes. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool for state comparison or bulk retrieval of all states' external review rules, but these are not critical to the main purpose.