mental-health-care

Find a Clinician

find_provider

Read-only

The canonical 'find a clinician' tool. Returns up to 3 best-fit providers ranked by Emora's production matching algorithm (rankTherapist): each concern maps to weighted specialties; each provider's specialties score against that map; approach / language / rating / availability layer on top. Pass concerns[] for a clinical match; omit them for a logistical (availability + rating) ranking.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`state`	Yes
`concerns`	No	Concern IDs from the curated enum (see ConcernId). Pass 1-3 for best results — too many concerns dilute the score.
`insurance`	No
`client_age`	No
`continuation`	No	Token from a previous find_provider call. Re-applies prior client profile; new args override.
`appointment_type`	Yes
`preferred_gender`	No	Provider gender preference (e.g. 'female','male','non-binary').
`preferred_language`	No	Non-English language the provider should speak.
`preferred_approaches`	No	Therapy modalities the user prefers (e.g. ["cbt","dbt","playTherapy"]). Bumps the score for providers whose approaches list includes these.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only mark readOnlyHint=true; the description adds detailed behavior beyond that: returns up to 3 providers, ranking is based on weighted specialty maps with approach/language/rating/availability layered on top, and the two ranking modes. 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?

Two dense but purposeful sentences; the canonical claim and ranking mechanism are front-loaded and no filler is present. The algorithm detail is justified because it affects how an agent should reason about results.

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?

Strong for a 9-param tool with no output schema: it states return count, ranking mode, and overall scoring. It falls short of complete because the required appointment_type values remain opaque IDs and the returned provider object structure is not described.

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?

Adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how concerns drive the clinical score and how omitting them switches to a logistical ranking. Schema already covers several params, though the opaque appointment_type enum IDs and client_age are not clarified in either place.

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?

States precise verb+resource: 'canonical find a clinician tool' returning up to 3 best-fit providers. Differentiates itself by describing the production matching algorithm, so an agent can tell it from sibling tools like check_availability or book_appointment.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance: pass concerns[] for clinical matching, omit them for logistical ranking. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools (e.g., check_availability for exact slots), but the in-tool branching is clear.

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

All mental-health-care tools Inspect

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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct action (about, book, browse, check, find, search, start) and descriptions clarify boundary cases (e.g., book_appointment vs book_matching_session, search_content vs browse_pages). Minor overlap remains between about_emora's service catalog and browse_pages' service/specialty/insurance pages, but it is unlikely to misdirect an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and mostly follow an imperative verb_noun pattern (find_provider, check_availability, get_cost_estimate). Two small deviations — about_emora and start_here — are still readable and don't undermine the overall predictable pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is squarely in the ideal range and each one serves a meaningful step in the mental-health care journey: orientation, crisis support, content search, provider matching, availability, cost estimation, and booking. There is no obvious redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full discovery-to-booking funnel, including crisis triage, provider search, availability, cost estimates, and two booking paths. Minor gaps exist (no explicit reschedule/cancel or appointment-list tool), but those actions plausibly live outside this server's hand-off model.

Resources

Need Help?