Find 76,000+ curated healthcare service vendors across 25 categories and all 50 US states.
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.
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.
get_provider_detailGet Vendor Profile DetailAGet 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. |
| 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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by noting the error behavior for unknown slugs and enumerating returned fields, which supplements the 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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then lists return fields and error handling. Though slightly verbose, each sentence provides relevant information and avoids fluff, making it efficient.
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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage triggers, parameter origin, return content, and error case, leaving no significant gaps.
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 enhances this by explaining the slug's provenance (from match_practice or search_providers) and providing an example, going beyond the schema's basic type/description.
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 retrieves a full vendor profile by slug, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on a single provider's detail rather than listing or searching categories.
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?
It explicitly instructs to use this tool after match_practice or search_providers, and provides concrete user phrasings that trigger its use. It also states the slug originates from those sibling tools, giving clear context and alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_categoriesList Healthcare Vendor CategoriesAList every service category in the GPH vendor directory with its live provider count. Call this FIRST when you do not already know which category fits the user's need, when a category search returned nothing, or when the user asks what kinds of vendors are available. Returns all 25 categories with {category, slug, providers}. The category names returned here are the exact values match_practice and search_providers expect (common aliases also resolve). Takes no arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of categories returned; absent when isError. |
| content | Yes | |
| isError | No | Present and true only on failure. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context: it returns 25 categories with a live provider count, includes a 'slug', and states that category names are exact values accepted by other tools (with aliases resolving). This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying output scope and cross-tool compatibility.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then delivers usage guidance, output format, and compatibility in a compact manner. Every sentence adds value; there is no repetition of annotations or schema 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?
For a simple, parameter-less list tool, the description is fully complete. It covers what, when, and how the output can be used, and given an output schema exists, there is no need to detail return values further. The compatibility note with sibling tools provides essential context for an agent selecting the right 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?
The tool takes no parameters, and the schema is empty. The description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments,' which eliminates any ambiguity. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description confirms this clearly without unnecessary detail.
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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'List every service category in the GPH vendor directory with its live provider count.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_provider_detail, match_practice, search_providers) by emphasizing it lists all categories rather than searching or matching, and by explicitly positioning itself as the entry point.
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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this FIRST when you do not already know which category fits the user's need, when a category search returned nothing, or when the user asks what kinds of vendors are available.' It also notes compatibility with match_practice and search_providers, giving clear direction on how this tool relates to alternatives.
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 PracticeARecommend 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. Send city and state separately, not as a combined `location` string. | |
| state | Yes | Two-letter state abbreviation (e.g. 'TX', 'CA', 'NY'). Send as `state`, not `state_abbr` (`state_abbr` is an output field name only). | |
| category | Yes | Service category needed. One of the 25 categories: 'Medical Billing & RCM', 'Credentialing Services', 'Healthcare IT & EHR', 'Practice Management Consulting', 'Healthcare Legal Services', 'Healthcare CPA & Tax Advisory', 'Medical Coding Services', 'Healthcare Staffing & Recruiting', 'Healthcare Marketing & Reputation Management', 'Compliance & HIPAA Services', 'Medical Equipment & Supplies', 'Healthcare Real Estate & Site Selection', 'Practice Financing & Loans', 'Healthcare Construction & Facilities', 'Healthcare Signage & Wayfinding', 'Medical Waste & Environmental Services', 'Healthcare Insurance & Malpractice Brokers', 'Practice Valuation & Brokerage', 'Patient Financing & Payment Solutions', 'Medical Transcription & Documentation', 'Pharmacy & Medication Management', 'Telehealth & Virtual Care Infrastructure', 'Laboratory & Diagnostics Services', 'Group Purchasing Organizations (GPOs)', 'Healthcare PR & Communications'. Common aliases also resolve (e.g. 'billing', 'RCM', 'EHR', 'credentialing'). Call list_categories for the live list with provider counts. | |
| 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. The parameter is named `practice_size`, not `size`. |
| 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). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it states the tool scores and ranks providers against the practice profile, returns up to 5 merit-ranked matches (quality-scored, no paid placement), and lists the exact output fields. This discloses ranking methodology and trust-relevant details without contradicting the 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 relatively long but front-loads the core purpose and includes necessary examples and sibling differentiation. It lists all output fields, which is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but the added detail is not wasted and the structure remains coherent. A minor redundancy keeps it from a perfect score.
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?
The description fully covers when to use the tool, how it works, what it returns, and how it differs from siblings. Given the rich schema and annotations, no further contextual information is needed. It even explains the relationship to search_providers and get_provider_detail, making it self-contained.
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 has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions, including alias handling for 'category' and field-name notes like 'practice_size' vs. 'size' and 'state' vs. 'state_abbr'. The description mentions the practice profile but does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Recommend and rank') with a clear resource ('best healthcare vendors for a specific medical practice'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on recommendation against a practice profile, while search_providers is for open-ended browsing and get_provider_detail for full profiles. Example queries further anchor its purpose.
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 when to use it ('when a practice manager, physician, or administrator asks for a recommendation') and provides multiple example queries. It also explicitly names alternatives: 'For open-ended browsing without a practice profile, use search_providers' and 'Pass a match's slug to get_provider_detail for the full profile.' This is excellent when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.
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 DirectoryABrowse 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'). Send as `state`, not `state_abbr` (`state_abbr` is an output field name only). National providers always included. | |
| category | Yes | Service category to search. One of the 25 categories: 'Medical Billing & RCM', 'Credentialing Services', 'Healthcare IT & EHR', 'Practice Management Consulting', 'Healthcare Legal Services', 'Healthcare CPA & Tax Advisory', 'Medical Coding Services', 'Healthcare Staffing & Recruiting', 'Healthcare Marketing & Reputation Management', 'Compliance & HIPAA Services', 'Medical Equipment & Supplies', 'Healthcare Real Estate & Site Selection', 'Practice Financing & Loans', 'Healthcare Construction & Facilities', 'Healthcare Signage & Wayfinding', 'Medical Waste & Environmental Services', 'Healthcare Insurance & Malpractice Brokers', 'Practice Valuation & Brokerage', 'Patient Financing & Payment Solutions', 'Medical Transcription & Documentation', 'Pharmacy & Medication Management', 'Telehealth & Virtual Care Infrastructure', 'Laboratory & Diagnostics Services', 'Group Purchasing Organizations (GPOs)', 'Healthcare PR & Communications'. Common aliases also resolve (e.g. 'billing', 'RCM', 'EHR', 'credentialing'). Call list_categories for the live list with provider counts. This tool does NOT accept a specialty filter -- use match_practice for specialty-aware ranking. | |
| per_page | No | Results per page (1-25, default 10) | |
| min_rating | No | Minimum quality score (0-100). Most providers score 50-85. The parameter is named `min_rating`, not `min_quality_score`. | |
| 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. |
| 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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: pagination, filters, response fields, category aliases, the absence of a specialty filter, and parameter naming quirks (state vs state_abbr, min_rating).
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 dense but efficient—every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, use cases, filter/return details, sibling navigation. No redundancy or fluff.
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 an 8-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, return format, sibling tools, limitations, and parameter quirks. It is complete and leaves no significant gaps.
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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema with example use cases, category alias resolution, explanation of the Tier-1 subset, and clarifications on parameter naming. This goes well beyond the structured parameter 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 identifies the tool as browsing/filtering the healthcare vendor directory with action verbs 'Browse and filter'. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly directing to match_practice for scored recommendations and 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?
It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: for open-ended exploration, paging through options, with concrete example queries. It also states when not to use (when a scored shortlist is needed) and names the alternative tools.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.