Skip to main content
Glama

Chia Health MCP Server

by health.chia

Start Session

auth_start
Destructive

Start a patient session by providing their contact information. Sends a 6-digit verification code to the patient's email.

Returns a session_id (NOT a token). The session_id is used with auth_verify_otp to prove email ownership and get a bearer token.

The code is in the email subject line: 'Chia Health: Your code is XXXXXX'. If you have access to the patient's email (e.g. Gmail MCP), search for this subject.

No authentication required. Call this when the patient is ready to proceed with their medical intake — after browsing medications and checking eligibility.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesPatient's email address
phoneYesPatient's phone number (US format)
last_nameNoPatient's last name
first_nameYesPatient's first name

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (which already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, and destructiveHint), the description adds rich behavioral context: no authentication required, sends a 6-digit code to email, returns session_id (not token), and locates the code in the email subject line. This exceeds the baseline and provides clear operational expectations.

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 concise with four sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the primary action and then adds crucial flow details (session_id vs token, email subject, no auth, when to call). No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (starting a session with side effects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, flow, relation to verification, email subject line, no-auth requirement, and patient readiness timing. It leaves no major gaps for an agent to correctly select and invoke 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 minimal extra meaning about parameters (e.g., email is used for sending the code) but doesn't significantly compensate beyond schema details. It does not introduce new parameter semantics.

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: 'Start a patient session by providing their contact information' and distinguishes itself from siblings like auth_verify_otp by explaining it sends a code and returns a session_id, not a token.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this when the patient is ready to proceed with their medical intake — after browsing medications and checking eligibility.' It also outlines the next step (use with auth_verify_otp) and offers practical tip about email subject line, effectively guiding the agent through alternatives.

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 Server 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with clear boundaries, such as auth_* for authentication, checkout_* for payment, and portal_* for patient portal actions. However, there is some overlap between checkout_status and auth_check_payment (both involve polling for payment status) and between portal_support and portal_message (both for communication), which could cause minor confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, with clear prefixes grouping related tools (e.g., auth_, checkout_, consent_, intake_, medications_, order_, portal_, provider_). This predictable structure makes it easy to understand the tool set's organization and purpose.

Tool Count3/5

With 34 tools, the count is borderline high for a telehealth server, as it may feel heavy and complex for agents to navigate. While the tools cover a comprehensive workflow from authentication to patient portal, some consolidation (e.g., merging similar polling tools) could improve usability without losing functionality.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides complete coverage for the telehealth domain, including authentication, eligibility checks, medication browsing, intake, consent, checkout, order management, and patient portal features. There are no obvious gaps; agents can handle the entire patient journey from start to ongoing care without dead ends.

Resources