Skip to main content
Glama

GPH Intelligence - Healthcare Vendor Finder

by io.github.Crindo2

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, 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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesProvider slug identifier (e.g. 'ams-solutions-inc-dallas-tx'). Obtained from match_practice or search_providers response.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsNoAbsent when isError.
countNoAlways 1 on success; absent when isError.
contentYes
isErrorNoPresent and true only when the slug is unknown or the fetch fails.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness4/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters4/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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.

All GPH Intelligence - Healthcare Vendor Finder toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores: 'get_provider_detail', 'match_practice', 'search_providers'. No mixing of styles.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the key workflows: searching/filtering (search_providers), receiving recommendations (match_practice), and getting details (get_provider_detail). No obvious gaps.

Resources