Skip to main content
Glama

GPH Intelligence - Healthcare Vendor Finder

by io.github.Crindo2

Recommend Healthcare Vendors for a Practice

match_practice
Read-onlyIdempotent

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityNoCity where the practice is located. Send city and state separately, not as a combined `location` string.
stateYesTwo-letter state abbreviation (e.g. 'TX', 'CA', 'NY'). Send as `state`, not `state_abbr` (`state_abbr` is an output field name only).
categoryYesService 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.
specialtyNoMedical specialty of the practice (e.g. 'Family Medicine', 'Cardiology', 'Pediatrics', 'Dermatology')
ehr_systemNoEHR system used by the practice (e.g. 'Epic', 'athenahealth', 'AdvancedMD', 'eClinicalWorks'). Helps score providers with compatible integrations higher.
budget_rangeNoApproximate monthly budget
practice_sizeNoSize of the practice by provider count. The parameter is named `practice_size`, not `size`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsNoAbsent when isError.
countNoTotal scored candidates before the top-5 slice; absent when isError.
contentYes
isErrorNoPresent and true only on failure (match request error or no candidates).

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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.

Conciseness4/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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.

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