Skip to main content
Glama

Chia Health MCP Server

by health.chia

Message Provider

portal_message
Destructive

Send a message to the patient's healthcare provider. Returns sent confirmation and estimated response time. Urgent messages (containing keywords like 'emergency', 'chest pain', 'difficulty breathing') are flagged for priority response. Requires authentication.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesMessage text to send to the healthcare provider
patient_idYesPatient ID
bearer_tokenNoAuthentication token for the patient session

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds extra behavioral context beyond that: it returns confirmation and estimated response time, and urgent messages with specific keywords are prioritized. It also states the authentication requirement. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then return behavior, urgent handling, and authentication. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition.

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 is simple, has an output schema, and full schema coverage, so the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, return behavior, urgent flagging, and auth. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but that is more relevant to usage guidelines; overall it is sufficient for a messaging 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 parameters (message, patient_id, bearer_token) are already well-documented. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('patient's healthcare provider'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like provider_respond or portal_support. It avoids ambiguity and tautology.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (sending a message to a provider) and mentions urgent message handling, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. This is sufficient but not as explicit as naming 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