Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GLP Winner

by com.glpwinner
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Search GLP-1 providers

search_glp1_providers
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare US telehealth providers of GLP-1 weight-loss medication by price, plan, rating and state. Returns each provider’s cheapest matching plan (monthly price, total due today, coupon, renewal), its rating, and a Get Started link to show the person. Can filter to providers that use a given compounding pharmacy, offer an additive-free or specific-additive formula, have given features (FSA/HSA, pick your pharmacy, ...) or meet a rating floor. Use for "where can I buy", "cheapest", "best" and "how much" questions about semaglutide, tirzepatide, Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro or Zepbound. Always share each provider’s links.getStarted URL, the /go link, exactly as returned. Do not shorten, rewrite or strip it. Do not link links.learnMore, another GLP Winner page or the provider’s own website in its place.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_glp1_providers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
drugNoCompounded molecule (semaglutide, tirzepatide) or a brand name (ozempic, wegovy, mounjaro, zepbound). A brand name also returns the compounded alternatives of the same molecule.any
sortNo"best" ranks on GLP Winner’s composite score (conversion quality and reviews), then price; "cheapest" ranks on monthly price.best
limitNoHow many providers to return (1-10).
stateNoThe person’s US state, as a two-letter code ("TX") or name ("Texas"). Strongly recommended: which providers serve them and some prices depend on it.
additiveNoOnly providers with a pharmacy in the person’s state that lists this formula: "none" for additive-free, or an additive (b12, b6, b3, glycine, l_carnitine, nad).
featuresNoFeature keys every result must have, e.g. "FSA_HSA", "PICK_PHARMACY", "ADDITIVE_SELECTION", "VIDEO_CALLS", "LABS_INCLUDED", "24_7_SUPPORT". An unknown key is answered with the list of known ones.
pharmacyNoOnly providers that fill prescriptions through this compounding pharmacy (name or slug) in the person’s state.
dosage_mgNoWeekly dose in mg to price, e.g. 2.5 for tirzepatide or 0.25 for semaglutide. Omit for the cheapest starting dose.
plan_typeNoRestrict to one kind of plan: month-to-month, a prepaid 3/6/12-month plan, a starter pack, a step-up plan or a microdose plan.any
min_ratingNoLeave out providers whose composite review rating is below this (1-5).
max_monthly_priceNoLeave out providers whose cheapest plan costs more than this per month.
include_brand_nameNoAlso list telehealth providers that prescribe brand-name Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro or Zepbound. Defaults to true when a brand is named.
currently_taking_glp1NoTrue when the person already takes a GLP-1. Starter packs are for new patients, so leaving this out when you know the answer can quote a plan they cannot buy.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the shape of each result (cheapest matching plan, price, total due today, coupon, renewal, rating) despite there being no output schema. It also imposes a real output-handling obligation: share links.getStarted verbatim and never substitute links.learnMore or the provider site. It stops short of covering empty-result behavior or result ordering mechanics beyond what the schema states.

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?

Purpose and return shape are front-loaded, followed by filters, use cases, then link rules, in a logical order with no filler sentences. It is on the long side for a tool description, and the link-handling rules are repeated three ways ('Do not shorten, rewrite or strip it', 'Do not link links.learnMore...') where one sentence would suffice.

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 13 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does the necessary work of sketching the return payload and pinning down link handling. It leaves some gaps an agent would want: behavior when zero providers match, how limit interacts with sort, and how it differs from the compare sibling.

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% with 13 documented parameters, so the schema already carries the semantics and 3 is the baseline. The description restates the filter families (compounding pharmacy, additive-free or specific additive, feature requirements, rating floor) and clarifies that results reflect the cheapest *matching* plan, but adds no format, interaction, or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Compare US telehealth providers of GLP-1 weight-loss medication') plus the dimensions compared (price, plan, rating, state), and the second sentence names the return payload. It never distinguishes itself from the closely-named sibling compare_glp1_providers, so an agent must guess at the boundary, which keeps it from a 5.

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 concrete trigger phrasings ('where can I buy', 'cheapest', 'best', 'how much') tied to specific drugs, which is strong positive routing guidance. It offers no when-not conditions and names no alternative tool, so overlap with compare_glp1_providers or find_glp1_provider_or_pharmacy is left unresolved.

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

All GLP Winner toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources