Chia Health MCP

Get Checkout Status

checkout_status

Read-only

Check the payment status of a checkout session. Use this to poll for completion after sending the patient a payment link (the payment_url from checkout_create). When the patient pays via the link, this tool detects the payment, triggers order fulfillment, and returns the confirmation. Poll every 5-10 seconds while waiting. Requires authentication.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`checkout_id`	Yes	Checkout session ID to check payment status for
`bearer_token`	No	Authentication token for the patient session

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description contradicts the annotations: readOnlyHint=true but the description states the tool 'triggers order fulfillment', implying a write/side effect. This is a serious inconsistency. The description also adds useful context like polling interval and authentication, but the contradiction overrides any positive contribution.

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 three sentences and each sentence provides meaningful information without fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes necessary polling and authentication details.

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?

Despite having an output schema and good schema coverage, the description misleads about the tool's side effects by claiming it triggers order fulfillment while annotations say read-only. This fundamental inconsistency makes the description incomplete and unreliable for an agent, even though it covers how to use the tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some value by mentioning authentication and referencing checkout_create for payment_url, but it doesn't substantially enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool checks the payment status of a checkout session, using the specific verb 'check' and resource 'payment status'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing polling after checkout_create and the payment_url.

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?

The description explicitly says to use this tool for polling after sending a payment link and even provides the polling interval (every 5-10 seconds). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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

All Chia Health MCP tools Inspect

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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource and action within the telehealth workflow: auth, consent, eligibility, intake, medications, checkout, order, portal, and provider communication. Even the multiple medication tools (list, details, availability, pricing) have clearly separated purposes, and there is no overlap among the 34 tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent `domain_verb` or `domain_noun` snake_case pattern, prefixed by their domain (auth_, checkout_, consent_, intake_, medications_, order_, portal_, provider_). There are no mixed conventions or vague verbs, making the API predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and feels fragmented. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., medication pricing and availability could fold into details, and consent list/status could be combined). While the scope is broad, the count is excessive for a well-scoped MCP server.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full patient lifecycle from authentication and consent through eligibility, intake, checkout, order management, and post-order portal features. Minor gaps include lack of order cancellation or order listing, and no explicit intake update mechanism, but these are workable and do not block core workflows.

Resources

Need Help?