GPH Intelligence — Healthcare Service Provider Finder (API key required)
Server Details
Find 103,000+ verified healthcare service providers across 25 categories and all 50 US states.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- Crindo2/gph-mcp-server
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 4/5.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: get_provider_detail retrieves full profile for a specific slug; match_practice scores providers for a practice profile; search_providers enables open-ended browsing. No overlap.
All tool names use a consistent snake_case pattern with verb_noun structure (get, match, search). Clear and predictable.
With 3 tools, the set is concise yet complete for the server's focused purpose: browsing, matching, and detail retrieval. Each tool earns its place.
The tools cover the full workflow: explore (search_providers), get recommendations (match_practice), and view details (get_provider_detail). No obvious gaps.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_provider_detailGet Provider DetailARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get the full profile of one healthcare service provider identified by slug: company_name, category (plus super_category grouping), description, services_tags (comma-delimited list of services offered), website, phone, city/state, quality_score (0-100), verified status, listing tier (free/paid), practice_size_fit, and reviews with review_count and average_rating. Slug comes from match_practice or search_providers results. Returns an error if the slug is unknown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Provider slug identifier (e.g. 'ams-solutions-inc-dallas-tx'). Obtained from match_practice or search_providers response. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that an error is returned for unknown slugs, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with no unnecessary words, and front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it is efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers output fields, input source, and error behavior. It is contextually complete given the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (1 parameter fully described). The description repeats that the slug comes from sibling tools, which is already in the schema, so minimal added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves the full profile of a healthcare provider using a slug, and lists all included fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools (match_practice, search_providers) which are for searching/matching, not getting details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states that the slug comes from match_practice or search_providers, guiding when to use this tool. It also notes that an error is returned for an unknown slug. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
match_practiceMatch Practice to ProvidersARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Score and rank healthcare service providers for a specific medical practice profile (specialty, size, location, EHR system, budget). Returns up to 5 ranked matches with {company_name, category, city, state_abbr, quality_score (0-100), final_score (0-100), verified status, description, website, profile_url, slug}. Use this when the user has practice-specific criteria and wants scored recommendations — for open-ended browsing, use search_providers instead. Pass a match's slug to get_provider_detail for the full profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | City where the practice is located | |
| state | Yes | Two-letter state abbreviation (e.g. 'TX', 'CA', 'NY') | |
| category | Yes | Service category needed (e.g. 'Medical Billing & RCM', 'Credentialing Services', 'Healthcare IT & EHR', 'Practice Management Software') | |
| specialty | No | Medical specialty of the practice (e.g. 'Family Medicine', 'Cardiology', 'Pediatrics', 'Dermatology') | |
| ehr_system | No | EHR system used by the practice (e.g. 'Epic', 'athenahealth', 'AdvancedMD', 'eClinicalWorks'). Helps score providers with compatible integrations higher. | |
| budget_range | No | Approximate monthly budget | |
| practice_size | No | Size of the practice by provider count |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: returns up to 5 ranked matches with fields like quality_score (0-100) and final_score (0-100). Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) are consistent; no contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy. Uses clear structure: purpose, when to use, related tool guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description provides complete context: what the tool does, input criteria, output structure (5 ranked matches with specific fields), and how to use results with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 7 parameters. Description adds contextual meaning, e.g., for ehr_system: 'Helps score providers with compatible integrations higher.' This enriches the schema information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Score and rank healthcare service providers for a specific medical practice profile' and lists explicit criteria (specialty, size, location, EHR system, budget). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying when to use each: 'for open-ended browsing, use search_providers instead.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit guidance on when to use: 'when the user has practice-specific criteria and wants scored recommendations' and when not: 'for open-ended browsing, use search_providers instead.' Also advises passing a match's slug to get_provider_detail for full profile.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_providersSearch Provider DirectoryARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Paginated browse of the healthcare service provider directory filtered by category, location, and minimum quality score. Returns a page of providers with {company_name, category, city, state_abbr, quality_score (0-100), verified status, contact info, slug}. Use this for open-ended exploration and filtering — for scored recommendations to a specific practice profile, use match_practice instead. Pass a returned slug to get_provider_detail for the full profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | City name to filter by (partial match supported) | |
| page | No | Page number for pagination (default 1) | |
| state | No | Two-letter state abbreviation (e.g. 'TX'). National providers always included. | |
| category | Yes | Service category to search (e.g. 'Medical Billing & RCM', 'Credentialing Services') | |
| per_page | No | Results per page (1-25, default 10) | |
| min_rating | No | Minimum quality score (0-100). Most providers score 50-85. | |
| tier1_grade | No | Filter to the curated Tier-1 provider set by grade: 'A' (top-graded) or 'B' (strong). Tier-1 is a hand-reviewed ~4,400-provider subset; most directory records are not Tier-1, so this narrows results sharply. Omit to search the full directory. | |
| practice_size_fit | No | Filter providers by the practice size they best serve. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description accurately reflects the read-only, idempotent nature already indicated by annotations. It adds the important behavioral trait of pagination and specifies the return fields, giving the agent a clear picture of the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of three concise, well-structured sentences. The first sentence fronts the main purpose, the second adds return details and alternatives, and the third provides a usage hint. No extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, pagination, no output schema but described return fields), the description covers the essential aspects: filtering criteria, pagination, return fields, and how it relates to siblings. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides exhaustive parameter descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal new semantics per parameter. It highlights key filter categories (category, location, min_rating) and pagination, which is helpful context but not strictly necessary.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool provides a 'paginated browse' of a healthcare provider directory, filtered by category, location, and minimum quality score. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'match_practice' by noting this is for open-ended exploration, not scored recommendations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('open-ended exploration and filtering') and when to use the alternative ('match_practice' for scored recommendations). It also suggests passing the returned slug to 'get_provider_detail' for full profiles, providing a clear workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!