Skip to main content
Glama

US claim denial — both appeal clocks and who to call

denial_clock
Read-onlyIdempotent

One call for a denied US health-insurance claim: both free appeal clocks with your actual dates where they can be computed, which external-review route applies (state, federal, or the federal one regardless of your state because the plan is self-funded), what the CMS file records for external reviews filed and overturned in that state and for that insurer — or 'not reported' where the file does not carry it — the insurer's own published appeal procedure where we have read it, and your state insurance department's consumer line with the date we read it from their own site. Free, no key, attribution required. Source: CMS Transparency in Coverage Public Use File (PY2026 release), 45 CFR 147.136.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stateNoUS state name, slug or two-letter code. Decides the external-review route and the consumer line.
insurerNoInsurer slug or name — the free index is https://denialfacts.com/api/insurers. An unresolved value comes back named in `unresolved`, never as a 404.
denial_dateNoDate on the denial notice, YYYY-MM-DD. Gives an actual internal-appeal deadline. The external-review deadline runs from the FINAL internal denial and is never derived from this date.
self_fundedNoTrue if coverage is through a job and the employer pays the claims itself (a self-funded plan, 63% of covered workers). If true the state process does not apply whatever your state operates.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite the annotations already covering read-only and idempotent behavior, the description adds meaningful behavioral insight: 'Free, no key, attribution required', a named data source, 'or "not reported" where the file does not carry it' describing fallback, and the date the consumer line was ingested. These traits go beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense and prioritized: it opens with the main outcome and the key differentiators, then adds source and attribution. A single long sentence with many distinct outcomes is not broken into bullet points, but every clause is loaded with relevant detail and nothing is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates all the outputs: both appeal clocks, the external-review route, CMS file records, insurer's procedure, and the consumer line with the date it was read. It also covers caveats ('where they can differ', 'where not report') and the license. This is a full account of what the tool returns.

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 the schema already elaborates all 4 parameters. The description echoes some parameter implications, such as how self-funded plans are dealt with and that the external-review deadline is not computed from denial date, but it adds no new detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is therefore adequate.

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 immediately identifies the tool as a comprehensive response for a denied US health-insurance claim: 'One call for a denied US health-insurance claim: both free appeal clocks...' and enumerates specific deliverables. This is a specific verb (one call/lookup) plus resource and distinguishes its domain from all sibling tools, which are about parking/ticketing/door topics.

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?

The opening 'for a denied US health-insurance claim' clearly defines the invocation context, and parameters like state, insurer, self-funded, etc., map to the decision logic. It does not name alternatives or say when not to use it, but no sibling tool appears to overlap in domain, so the use case is sufficiently navigable.

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.

Resources