GPH Intelligence - Healthcare Vendor Finder

Get Vendor Profile Detail

get_provider_detail

Read-onlyIdempotent

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 or services for a specific provider. Returns company_name, category, city/state, quality_score (0-100; profile completeness, not a quality rating; 0 means never scored), verified status, description, services offered, practice_size_fit, phone and website where listed, Google rating and Google review count where present, and the profile URL. Where a vendor has been enrichment-extracted, the description, services and practice-size fit come from that extraction, the profile adds certifications and compliance attestations, locations served and founding year where extracted, and the response states the extraction confidence and what it was grounded in (where the extraction abstained on practice-size fit, the legacy listing value is returned and labelled as not extracted); otherwise the legacy listing fields are returned. Slug comes from match_practice or search_providers results; returns an error if the slug is unknown.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TableJSON 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedJul 4, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "content": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "text": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "const": "text"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "type",
+          "text"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "count": {
+      "const": 1,
+      "description": "Always 1 on success; absent when isError."
+    },
+    "ids": {
+      "description": "Absent when isError.",
+      "properties": {
+        "drilled": {
+          "description": "The slug that was looked up.",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "isError": {
+      "description": "Present and true only when the slug is unknown or the fetch fails.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "content"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedApr 17, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / slug / description

Previous value: -"Provider slug identifier (e.g. 'ams-solutions-inc-dallas-tx')"New value: +"Provider slug identifier (e.g. 'ams-solutions-inc-dallas-tx'). Obtained from match_practice or search_providers response."

First observedApr 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: quality_score is 'profile completeness, not a quality rating', unknown slugs return an error, and enrichment-extracted results carry confidence and grounding information. It also clarifies how legacy vs extracted fields are labeled, which is valuable behavioral disclosure.

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?

All content is relevant and the description is front-loaded with purpose and usage. However, the enrichment condition is a long, dense run-on sentence that could be split for easier parsing, preventing a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description fully covers the tool's pipeline position, expected input provenance, output fields, conditional behavior, and error handling. Given the output schema and read-only annotations, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates that the slug comes from match_practice or search_providers and adds an error condition, but it does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter documentation.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full profile of one healthcare vendor by slug.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by framing the tool as the detail-retrieval step after match_practice or search_providers, not a listing or search operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this after match_practice or search_providers when the user asks to tell me more about [vendor]' and lists concrete user intents. It also implicitly excludes sibling tools by positioning this as the follow-up detail lookup, making the selection decision clear.

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

All GPH Intelligence - Healthcare Vendor Finder 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.