Insurance Research Expert by Spot

Get published provider rankings

get_rankings

Read-only

Retrieve the current published Reliability Score rankings. Broker scores and Carrier & MGA scores are ranked separately; the directory also shows a combined score, the average of the two. Partial scores and unrated assessments keep their qualifications. Use search_provider_reliability for provider, score, and status filters. Optional need runs a bounded editorial judgment over the published tables only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`need`	No
`includeMethodology`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`found`	Yes
`judgment`	No
`rankings`	No
`providers`	No
`methodology`	No
`spotCallout`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 29, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / providers

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "attribution": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "kind": {
+            "enum": [
+              "provider",
+              "entity"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "reason": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "scope": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "state": {
+            "enum": [
+              "resolved",
+              "legacy-brand",
+              "unresolved"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "state",
+          "name",
+          "scope"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "name": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "providerSlug": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "rank": {
+        "type": [
+          "number",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "rubric": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "score": {
+        "type": [
+          "number",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "status": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "providerSlug",
+      "name",
+      "rubric",
+      "status",
+      "score",
+      "rank",
+      "attribution"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

AddedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: scores are split by segment, the combined score is an average, partial/unrated assessments retain qualifications, and the 'need' judgment is bounded to published tables only (i.e., it won't synthesize data).

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place, with the core purpose front-loaded before segmentation details and the sibling routing. Some phrasing ('keep their qualifications', 'bounded editorial judgment') is terse to the point of slight ambiguity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be restated. The description covers the ranking model and one of two parameters; the only real gap for a 2-param read-only tool is the unexplained includeMethodology flag.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It partially does for 'need' ('runs a bounded editorial judgment over the published tables only'), which conveys what the string drives, but 'includeMethodology' is never explained and 'need' gets no format or length guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve the current published Reliability Score rankings') and immediately disambiguates scope: Broker vs Carrier & MGA are ranked separately with a combined average. It also names the sibling it is not, so an agent can separate it from search_provider_reliability without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes filtered lookups elsewhere ('Use search_provider_reliability for provider, score, and status filters'), which is a clear alternative plus the condition that selects it. It does not state any when-not condition or prerequisite for the rankings view itself, so it falls just short of the top score.

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

All Insurance Research Expert by Spot tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.