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. Use it at the second no as well, when the plan has said no again on internal appeal: external review is the step after it, and the CMS figures show how often that step overturned the insurer. 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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: free with no key, attribution required, the data source and release year, and a regulatory citation (45 CFR 147.136). It stops short of describing response completeness per field, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The body is a single sprawling sentence threaded with em-dash clauses, so the key routing information is buried mid-stream rather than front-loaded. Every clause carries information, but the run-on structure makes it hard to scan and is the definition's weakest dimension.

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?

With no output schema and four parameters, the description must describe the return surface itself, and it does: clocks, actual dates where computable, route determination, CMS filed/overturned counts with an explicit 'not reported' fallback, the insurer procedure, and the consumer line with a read date. That is close to complete for an agent to call it correctly, missing only a note on the shape/ordering of the response.

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 explains every parameter, including the self_funded implication and the denial_date-versus-final-denial distinction. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource — a denied US health-insurance claim — and enumerates the concrete outputs: both appeal clocks with dates, the external-review route, CMS filed/overturned figures, the insurer's published procedure, and the state consumer line. It is unambiguous about what it does, though sibling differentiation is moot because the sibling list (parking, NYC tickets, MTD answers) shares no domain.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it at the second no as well, when the plan has said no again on internal appeal,' and explains why the external-review step follows. That is clear usage context, but it names no alternative tool or when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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