Skip to main content
Glama

Stratalize Healthcare

by com.stratalize

get_stratalize_overview

Read-only

START HERE — Returns the complete Stratalize tool catalog: governed MCP tools across finance, healthcare, governance, real estate, crypto, and intelligence. Available via public MCP (no auth) or x402 micropayments on Base ($0.02 atomic · $0.10 benchmark · $0.50 synthesis · $1.00 premium · $3.00 outcome pack). Org intelligence, agent governance, and role briefs require OAuth. Call this first to discover tools by role or vertical.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: access methods (public MCP, x402 micropayments with specific pricing tiers, and OAuth requirement for certain features). This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand auth/coverage constraints. However, it doesn't describe return format or pagination, but for a catalog tool that's less critical.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is information-dense but efficient, front-loaded with 'START HERE' and each sentence adds value: scope, access methods, pricing, and usage guidance. No filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter discovery tool, the description is complete: it covers purpose, scope, access options, pricing, auth requirements, and how to use it. The sibling list further contextualizes it as an entry point.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the default baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed; the schema is empty and fully consistent.

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 clearly states 'Returns the complete Stratalize tool catalog' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by marking 'START HERE' and 'Call this first' — this is a discovery/overview tool, not a data lookup tool.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call this first to discover tools by role or vertical' and 'START HERE', giving clear when-to-use guidance. Also provides access context (public vs x402 vs OAuth) that helps agents decide if this tool is suitable.

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

All Stratalize Healthcare toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping or nearly identical purposes, such as get_drug_adverse_events and get_openfda_adverse_events both pulling FAERS data, get_drug_recall_status and get_fda_recall_history both handling recalls, and get_cms_star_rating overlapping with get_hospital_care_compare_quality. The distinctions rely on subtle source differences or output formatting, making it easy for an agent to select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 29 tools follow a strict get_<domain>_<descriptor> pattern, with snake_case throughout. The naming is highly predictable and consistent, which helps agents infer functionality even if they haven't seen a specific tool before.

Tool Count3/5

29 tools is on the heavy side for a healthcare data server, but the breadth of healthcare domains (pharma, providers, payers, supply chain, quality) partially justifies the count. However, the presence of overlapping tools suggests the count could be reduced by consolidation without losing coverage.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of healthcare operations: financial benchmarks, drug safety, compliance, quality ratings, provider verification, supply chain, and value-based care. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no specific patient outcome benchmark tool), but overall the core workflows for healthcare intelligence and benchmarking are well represented.

Resources