VA Healthcare Facilities
Server Details
VA facility locations, services, wait times, and satisfaction scores
- 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
Score is being calculated. Check back soon.
Available Tools
3 toolsfind_va_facilitiesAInspect
Find VA (Department of Veterans Affairs) facilities by location.
Search for VA medical centers, clinics, benefits offices, cemeteries,
and vet centers. At least one location parameter should be provided.
Args:
state: Two-letter state abbreviation (e.g., "CA", "TX").
city: City name to search in.
zip_code: 5-digit ZIP code to search near.
facility_type: Type of facility — "health" (medical centers/clinics),
"benefits" (regional benefits offices), "cemetery" (national
cemeteries), or "vet_center" (readjustment counseling). Default "health".
limit: Maximum number of results (default 25, max 200).| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| zip_code | No | ||
| facility_type | No | health |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses default values (facility_type='health', limit=25) and maximum constraints (max 200) not present in annotations, though omits rate limits or error behaviors.
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?
Front-loaded purpose statement followed by structured Args section; every sentence provides essential guidance without redundancy.
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?
Complete coverage of all parameters and critical usage constraints; no need to describe return values since output schema exists.
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?
Comprehensively compensates for 0% schema description coverage by detailing all 5 parameters with formats, examples (CA, TX), valid enum values, and default behaviors 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?
Clear action (Find) + specific resource (VA facilities by location) with explicit examples of facility types, implicitly distinguishing from sibling 'get' 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 critical constraint that at least one location parameter must be provided (essential since schema marks all as optional), but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_facility_detailAInspect
Get detailed information for a specific VA facility.
Returns comprehensive facility data including address, contact info,
operating hours, services offered, patient wait times, and patient
satisfaction scores.
Args:
facility_id: The VA facility ID (e.g., "vha_648", "vba_310",
"nca_907"). Obtain from find_va_facilities results.| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| facility_id | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Lists comprehensive return data (address, wait times, satisfaction scores) compensating for missing output schema visibility, but omits error behaviors, rate limits, or side effects.
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?
Appropriately concise with front-loaded purpose statement; Args section is necessary given schema deficiencies, though slightly redundant in ideal scenarios.
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 complete for low complexity (single parameter) and presence of output schema; covers the critical gap of parameter semantics effectively.
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?
Excellent compensation for 0% schema coverage by providing concrete ID examples (vha_648, vba_310) and clear provenance guidance ('Obtain from find_va_facilities').
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 purpose ('Get detailed information for a specific VA facility') but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling get_facility_services despite both returning service data.
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?
Implies workflow by stating facility_id should be 'Obtain from find_va_facilities results' but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_facility_servicesAInspect
Get the list of services offered at a specific VA facility.
Returns all healthcare and administrative services available at the
facility, including specialty care, mental health, dental, pharmacy,
and other clinical services.
Args:
facility_id: The VA facility ID (e.g., "vha_648"). Obtain from
find_va_facilities results.| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| facility_id | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Clarifies scope of returned data ('all healthcare and administrative services' with specific examples like mental health/dental), but lacks other behavioral traits (rate limits, caching, idempotency) since no annotations 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; three sentences each earning their place, though 'Args:' format is slightly informal for MCP metadata.
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 complete for a single-parameter tool; covers purpose, parameter source, and return categories without needing to detail output structure (output schema exists).
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 providing facility_id semantics, format example ('vha_648'), and provenance guidance (obtain from find_va_facilities).
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?
Specific verb+resource ('Get the list of services') and clearly distinguishes from siblings find_va_facilities (discovery) and get_facility_detail (general info) by specifying it returns healthcare/administrative service listings.
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 clear workflow context by stating facility_id should be 'Obtain from find_va_facilities results', establishing prerequisite relationship with sibling tool, though lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.
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!