Chia Health MCP

Upload Document

order_upload

DestructiveIdempotent

Upload a verification document for a medication order. Accepts photo ID and selfie as base64-encoded files. Supported formats: PDF, JPEG, PNG. Maximum size: 10MB. Requires authentication.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`order_id`	Yes	Order ID to upload document for
`file_name`	Yes	Original filename with extension (e.g. 'license.jpg')
`file_base64`	Yes	Base64-encoded file content (PDF, JPEG, or PNG, max 10MB)
`bearer_token`	No	Authentication token for the patient session
`document_type`	Yes	Document type: 'photo_id' or 'selfie'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, idempotent, and destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral constraints (base64 encoding, supported formats, 10MB limit, authentication requirement). It does not address the destructiveHint (e.g., possible overwriting), but given annotation availability, the description still adds value.

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?

Three concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose, the second covers file requirements, and the third gives the auth requirement. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, plus annotations. The description covers purpose, file formats, size, and authentication. It does not explicitly explain the destructive behavior or what happens after upload, but the output schema and annotations fill some gaps. Overall, it is complete for an upload tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces parameter semantics by mentioning photo ID/selfie (matching document_type), supported formats and max size (matching file_base64 constraints), and authentication (matching bearer_token). This adds synergy beyond the schema.

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 action ('Upload'), the resource ('a verification document for a medication order'), and the specific document types (photo ID, selfie). This distinguishes it from siblings like order_documents, which likely lists documents.

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 conveys a clear purpose and prerequisites (authentication), and the context of a medication order makes the intended use obvious. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the clarity of the upload scenario is sufficient for most cases.

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?