health-intel
Server Details
Healthcare provider & compliance intel: NPPES lookup, OIG/SAM exclusion screening, FDA enforcement.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.7/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
The tools cover distinct domains: FDA enforcement, new exclusions, provider lookup, and exclusion screening. However, provider_lookup already returns an OIG-LEIE exclusion flag, which overlaps with the purpose of screen_exclusion, potentially confusing an agent on which to use for a simple exclusion check.
Naming patterns are inconsistent: fda_enforcement (noun), new_exclusions (adjective_noun), provider_lookup (noun_verb), screen_exclusion (verb_noun). No consistent verb_noun or noun_verb pattern across tools, making it harder to predict tool names.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain of healthcare intelligence. Each tool addresses a specific need (FDA enforcement, exclusion alerts, provider lookup, screening) without being too few or too many.
The tool set covers core workflows: provider lookup, exclusion checking, and alerts for new exclusions and FDA enforcement. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for detailed enforcement history per provider, but the main use cases are covered.
Available Tools
4 toolsfda_enforcementBInspect
Return recent FDA enforcement/recall actions tied to a device/drug firm (openFDA). A manufacturer-risk layer for procurement and payor teams.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| firm | Yes | Recalling firm / manufacturer name. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, data freshness, or response format. Falls short given full burden on description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and a secondary contextual sentence. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists; description does not mention response structure, fields, or pagination. Adequate for a minimal tool but incomplete in conveying what the agent receives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the only parameter 'firm'. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool returns FDA enforcement/recall actions for a firm, adding context of use for procurement and payor teams. Distinct from sibling tools like new_exclusions, provider_lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage for checking FDA actions per firm, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives provided. Missing guidance on when not to use this vs other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
new_exclusionsAInspect
Return providers newly added to the OIG-LEIE exclusion list, optionally scoped by state and/or specialty. The credentialing / payment-integrity alert feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Default 60. | |
| state | No | ||
| specialty | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the tool returns a list, but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination. The behavior is implied as read-only, but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: first covers purpose and optional parameters, second adds context as an alert feed. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and 3 parameters, the description is adequate but lacks details on return format or pagination. For a simple list tool it covers basics, but leaves gaps in how results are presented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (limit described). The description adds meaning for state and specialty ('optionally scoped'), compensating for their lack of schema descriptions. This is valuable context beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns 'providers newly added to the OIG-LEIE exclusion list', specifying the resource (providers) and action (return). It also distinguishes from siblings like fda_enforcement, provider_lookup, and screen_exclusion by focusing on new OIG-LEIE exclusions and labeling it as an alert feed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for credentialing/payment-integrity alerts, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use. No comparative guidance against siblings is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
provider_lookupAInspect
Look up US healthcare providers from the public CMS NPPES registry by NPI, or search by specialty + state (+ optional name/city). Returns NPI, name, specialty, license, location, and an OIG-LEIE exclusion flag on each. Public data only — no PHI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| npi | No | Exact 10-digit NPI for a single provider. | |
| city | No | ||
| name | No | Provider or organization name substring. | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 50). | |
| state | No | Two-letter state, e.g. 'TX'. | |
| specialty | No | Taxonomy/specialty, e.g. 'Cardiology'. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses data source (public CMS registry), states 'no PHI' for safety, and lists return fields. For a read-only lookup tool, this is comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences front-load purpose and include return fields and data restrictions. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description fully explains return fields (NPI, name, specialty, etc.) and data source. All 6 parameters are addressed through usage modes. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining how parameters combine (e.g., 'search by specialty + state + optional name/city'). It reinforces the limit default, though schema already covers 83% of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it looks up providers by NPI or searches by specialty+state with optional filters. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings (FDA enforcement, exclusions) by specifying the CMS NPPES registry and return fields, but does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description provides clear usage modes (NPI lookup vs. search) but does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
screen_exclusionAInspect
Screen a provider/organization against the federal exclusion lists (HHS-OIG LEIE, and SAM.gov if configured). NPI match is exact; name match is flagged and identity-cautious. Returns sourced findings + a disclaimer. Facts, never an allegation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| npi | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| state | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description discloses exact vs fuzzy matching behavior, output nature (sourced findings + disclaimer), and factual tone. Lacks details on rate limits or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences: purpose, matching logic, output. Front-loaded, each sentence adds unique value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, matching, and output but lacks parameter details, output format, and meaning of 'if configured' for SAM.gov. Incomplete given 3 optional params and no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and description does not individually explain each parameter (npi, name, state). Only mentions NPI match behavior but omits role of state or interaction between parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool screens providers against federal exclusion lists (HHS-OIG LEIE, SAM.gov) and distinguishes from siblings (fda_enforcement, new_exclusions, provider_lookup) by focusing on exclusion checking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage for exclusion screening but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No direct guidance on prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!