CMS Medicare Data
Server Details
Medicare spending, chronic conditions, hospital quality, readmissions, and enrollment
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.8/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct data domain within Medicare: chronic conditions, hospital quality, hospital readmissions, enrollment, and spending. The descriptions clearly differentiate their purposes with no overlap in functionality. An agent can easily select the right tool based on the specific data need.
All tools follow a consistent 'get_[domain]_[metric]' naming pattern using snake_case. This predictable structure makes it easy to understand what each tool retrieves. The naming convention is uniform across all five tools without any deviations.
Five tools is well-scoped for a Medicare data server, covering key areas like conditions, hospital metrics, enrollment, and spending. Each tool earns its place by addressing a distinct aspect of Medicare data analysis. The count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming for the domain.
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage of Medicare data domains with clear retrieval operations. Minor gaps exist, such as no tools for provider-level data or prescription drug spending details, but the core areas are well-covered for geographic and hospital-level analysis. Agents can perform most common Medicare data queries effectively.
Available Tools
5 toolsget_chronic_conditionsAInspect
Get prevalence of chronic conditions among Medicare beneficiaries.
Returns state-level data on 21 chronic conditions including diabetes,
heart failure, COPD, depression, Alzheimer's, and more. Useful for
understanding disease burden by geography.
Args:
state: Two-letter US state abbreviation (e.g. 'CA', 'TX').
condition: Chronic condition name to filter by (e.g. 'diabetes',
'heart failure', 'COPD', 'depression').
year: Year of data (e.g. 2022).
limit: Maximum number of records to return (default 50, max 1000).| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| condition | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses state-level granularity and limit constraints (default 50, max 1000), but fails to explain behavior when optional parameters are omitted (all 4 parameters are optional per schema).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with purpose first, then return description, use case, and parameter details; no redundant sentences though Arg descriptions repeat schema info necessitated by lack of schema descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately covers the data content (21 conditions) given output schema exists, but incomplete regarding the 'all optional' parameter behavior—critical context for an agent deciding what arguments to provide.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since schema has 0% description coverage, the Args section provides essential semantics including formats (two-letter state abbreviation) and examples for every parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it retrieves prevalence of chronic conditions for Medicare beneficiaries with specific examples, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_medicare_enrollment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a use case ('understanding disease burden by geography') but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to hospital quality or spending tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_hospital_qualityBInspect
Get hospital quality star ratings and general information.
Returns hospital quality data including overall star ratings,
location details, and hospital type. Filter by state or city.
Args:
state: Two-letter US state abbreviation (e.g. 'CA', 'TX').
city: City name to filter by (e.g. 'Chicago', 'Houston').
limit: Maximum number of records to return (default 50, max 1000).| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| state | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Lacks annotations but description discloses return data types and limit constraints (default 50, max 1000); omits rate limits or auth details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with summary, return value description, and Args section; no redundant fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for simple 3-parameter tool; mentions key return values despite presence of output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates for 0% schema coverage by providing detailed Args section with formats (two-letter state), examples (CA, TX), and value constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it retrieves hospital quality star ratings and general info, distinguishing it from readmissions/spending siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to select this over get_hospital_readmissions or other sibling tools; only mentions filtering capability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_hospital_readmissionsAInspect
Get 30-day hospital readmission rates by hospital.
Returns hospital-level readmission data including excess readmission
ratios and predicted/expected readmission rates for conditions like
heart attack, heart failure, and pneumonia.
Args:
state: Two-letter US state abbreviation (e.g. 'CA', 'TX').
hospital_name: Hospital name or partial name to search for.
limit: Maximum number of records to return (default 50, max 1000).| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| hospital_name | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Provides useful behavioral details (default 50/max 1000 limits, return data structure) absent from annotations, but omits rate limits, auth requirements, or optional parameter behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with purpose front-loaded and clear Args section; appropriately concise with no redundant sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately covers core functionality but fails to address the all-optional parameter schema (what happens if no filters provided?) and lacks output format details despite output schema existing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Fully compensates for 0% schema description coverage by explaining state format, partial name matching for hospital_name, and limit constraints in the Args section.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (Get) and resource (30-day hospital readmission rates) clearly, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling quality tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to select this tool versus get_hospital_quality or other siblings; purely descriptive without selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_medicare_enrollmentAInspect
Get Medicare enrollment data by state and county.
Returns enrollment counts including total beneficiaries, Original
Medicare vs Medicare Advantage enrollment, and Part D enrollment.
Useful for understanding Medicare population by geography.
Args:
state: Two-letter US state abbreviation (e.g. 'CA', 'TX').
year: Year of enrollment data (e.g. 2022).
limit: Maximum number of records to return (default 50, max 1000).| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| state | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it successfully discloses return content (beneficiary counts, Original vs Advantage, Part D) and geographic aggregation level.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Efficiently structured with purpose first, return value description second, and Args section clearly delineating parameter semantics; no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for tool complexity (3 simple parameters, output schema exists); could note that parameters are optional (0 required) but covers essential behavioral and semantic ground well.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Critical compensation for 0% schema description coverage: provides format guidance (two-letter state abbreviations), examples ('CA', 'TX', 2022), and constraint details (max 1000) absent from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific verb ('Get') + resource ('Medicare enrollment data'), explicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on enrollment counts vs chronic conditions, quality, or spending.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implied usage ('Useful for understanding Medicare population by geography') but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance or differentiation from sibling tools like get_medicare_spending.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_medicare_spendingAInspect
Get Medicare spending per beneficiary by geographic area.
Returns geographic variation in Medicare spending including per-capita
costs and total spending amounts. Filter by state, county, or year.
Args:
state: Two-letter US state abbreviation (e.g. 'CA', 'TX').
county: County name to filter by (e.g. 'Los Angeles').
year: Year of spending data (e.g. 2022).
limit: Maximum number of records to return (default 50, max 1000).| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| county | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return content (per-capita costs, total spending) and pagination constraints (default 50, max 1000) beyond what annotations provide (none exist).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with purpose front-loaded, followed by return description and parameter details; no redundant sentences given the schema deficiencies it must compensate for.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately covers all 4 optional parameters and high-level return values; sufficient for the tool's complexity given that output schema exists to handle detailed return structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Completely compensates for 0% schema description coverage by providing detailed Args section with format specifications (Two-letter US state) and examples ('CA', 'Los Angeles', 2022) for all 4 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states specific action (Get Medicare spending per beneficiary) and resource (geographic area), distinguishing it from sibling enrollment, hospital quality, and chronic condition tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides filtering guidance ('Filter by state, county, or year') but lacks explicit comparison to siblings or scenarios for when to prefer this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!