GPH Intelligence - Healthcare Vendor Finder
Server Details
Find 76,000+ curated healthcare service vendors across 25 categories and all 50 US states.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- Crindo2/gph-mcp-server
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- GPH Intelligence - Healthcare Vendor Finder
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 4.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: get_provider_detail retrieves full profile of a single provider; match_practice provides ranked recommendations for a practice; search_providers allows open-ended browsing and filtering. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores: 'get_provider_detail', 'match_practice', 'search_providers'. No mixing of styles.
Three tools is appropriate for a healthcare vendor directory: one for detailed info, one for recommendations, and one for browsing. Not too few or too many.
The tool surface covers the key workflows: searching/filtering (search_providers), receiving recommendations (match_practice), and getting details (get_provider_detail). No obvious gaps.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_provider_detailGet Vendor Profile DetailARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get the full profile of one healthcare vendor by slug. Use this after match_practice or search_providers when the user asks to "tell me more about [vendor]", "what services does [vendor] offer", "is [vendor] verified", or wants contact info, services, reviews, or listing tier for a specific provider. Returns company_name, category (plus super_category grouping), description, services_tags (comma-delimited services offered), website, phone, city/state, quality_score (0-100), verified status, listing tier (free/paid), practice_size_fit, and reviews (review_count, 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. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ids | No | Absent when isError. |
| count | No | Always 1 on success; absent when isError. |
| content | Yes | |
| isError | No | Present and true only when the slug is unknown or the fetch fails. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the return fields (company_name, category, services_tags, etc.) and the error condition for unknown slugs. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then provides usage guidelines and return information. While information-dense and efficient, the long list of user intents could be more structured or bulleted for readability.
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?
With one parameter, good annotations, and an output schema (though not fully shown, but return fields are listed), the description covers purpose, when to use, what is returned, and error handling. It is complete for a detail-fetching tool.
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% with a clear description for the slug parameter. The description adds context: 'Slug comes from match_practice or search_providers results; returns an error if the slug is unknown,' which goes beyond the schema's example and clarifies the origin and error behavior.
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 starts with 'Get the full profile of one healthcare vendor by slug,' clearly specifying the verb (get), resource (full profile of one healthcare vendor), and method (by slug). It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning that the slug comes from match_practice or search_providers.
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 'Use this after match_practice or search_providers when the user asks to...' and lists specific user intents (e.g., 'tell me more about [vendor]', 'what services does [vendor] offer'). It also notes that the slug must be obtained from specific tools and that an error occurs if the slug is unknown, providing clear context for when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
match_practiceRecommend Healthcare Vendors for a PracticeARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Recommend and rank the best healthcare vendors for a specific medical practice. Use this when a practice manager, physician, or administrator asks for a recommendation, e.g. "recommend a medical billing / RCM company for my practice", "who should I use for credentialing / payer enrollment", "find an EHR for my small [specialty] practice", or "which practice-management software fits a [size] practice in [city, state]". Scores and ranks providers against the practice profile (specialty, size, location, EHR system, budget) and returns up to 5 merit-ranked matches (quality-scored, no paid placement) with {company_name, category, city, state_abbr, quality_score (0-100), final_score (0-100), verified status, description, website, profile_url, slug}. For open-ended browsing without a practice profile, use search_providers. 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 |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ids | No | Absent when isError. |
| count | No | Total scored candidates before the top-5 slice; absent when isError. |
| content | Yes | |
| isError | No | Present and true only on failure (match request error or no candidates). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds that results are merit-ranked, quality-scored, no paid placement, and up to 5 matches. No contradiction.
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 a single paragraph that front-loads purpose and usage. It is fairly concise but could be more structured; some repetition of output details.
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 (7 params, output schema exists), the description is complete: covers when to use, output structure, differentiation from siblings, and example queries.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description provides context via example queries but doesn't significantly add parameter semantics beyond the schema descriptions.
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 recommends and ranks healthcare vendors for a medical practice with specific example queries. It distinguishes siblings (search_providers for open-ended browsing, get_provider_detail for full profiles).
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 says when to use (practice manager asks for recommendation) and when not (open-ended browsing: use search_providers). Also mentions passing 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 the Healthcare Vendor DirectoryARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Browse and filter the healthcare vendor directory. Use this for open-ended exploration, e.g. "show me medical billing companies in Texas", "list credentialing services", "what EHR vendors are there for cardiology", or when the user wants to page through options rather than get a scored shortlist. Paginated results filtered by category, location, minimum quality score, curated Tier-1 grade, and practice-size fit; returns a page of providers with {company_name, category, city, state_abbr, quality_score (0-100), verified status, contact info, slug}. For a scored recommendation 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. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ids | No | Absent when isError. |
| count | No | Total matching providers across all pages; absent when isError. |
| content | Yes | |
| isError | No | Present and true only on failure. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds behavioral details: paginated results, filtering by category/location/quality/tier/practice-size, and national providers always included. 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?
Description is informative but slightly lengthy. However, it is well-structured with front-loaded purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful context. Could be marginally more concise but effective.
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 complexity (8 parameters, pagination, tier system) and presence of output schema, the description fully covers use cases, filtering options, and relationships to sibling tools. Provides sufficient context for correct selection and invocation.
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%, but description adds significant value: explains state parameter ('National providers always included'), min_rating ('Most providers score 50-85'), tier1_grade (meaning and impact on results), practice_size_fit, and pagination defaults.
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?
Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Browse and filter the healthcare vendor directory'. It provides specific examples ('show me medical billing companies in Texas') and distinguishes from siblings by noting that for scored recommendations, use match_practice 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?
Explicitly defines when to use this tool ('open-ended exploration', 'page through options') and when not to ('scored recommendation' -> use match_practice). Also mentions passing the returned slug to get_provider_detail for full profiles.
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!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.