mcp

cash_vs_insurance_optimizer

[Taxonomy H.41 — baseline response (public data only)] For a given service + patient plan, determine whether cash-pay + charity-care beats insurance billing.

WHEN TO USE: User is planning for a medical expense, comparing plan options, looking for financial assistance, or trying to structure a payment plan.

WHEN NOT: For billing-error analysis (scan_bill_for_errors) or appeal drafting (generate_appeal_letter).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "cpt_code": "<cpt_code>"
    },
    "name": "cash_vs_insurance_optimizer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cpt_code`	Yes
`cash_price`	No
`deductible_remaining`	No
`insurance_cost_estimate`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only adds the cryptic 'baseline response (public data only)' label. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it relies on user-supplied data only, what outputs it produces, or any limitations beyond public data.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by useful WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT sections. The 'Taxonomy H.41' prefix adds some noise, but it also signals the public-data baseline.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a four-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is insufficient for confident invocation. It answers the selection question well but not the invocation question: format/coverage of inputs, optionality semantics, and output expectations are missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not define any of the four parameters individually. It gives context that cash_price/insurance_cost_estimate/deductible_remaining likely feed the comparison, but parameter meaning and required/supplemental behavior are left to inference from property names.

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 uses a specific verb ('determine whether') and a precise comparison ('cash-pay + charity-care beats insurance billing') for a given service and patient plan. It also names exclusions (billing-error analysis and appeal drafting) with sibling tools, so selection is unambiguous among the large sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit 'WHEN TO USE' enumerates concrete user scenarios (planning medical expense, comparing options, seeking assistance, structuring payment plan), and 'WHEN NOT' names specific sibling tools for excluded tasks. This is clear routing guidance, not merely implied.

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

All mcp tools Inspect

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

Need Help?