Skip to main content
Glama

GPH Intelligence - Healthcare Vendor Finder

by io.github.Crindo2

Search the Healthcare Vendor Directory

search_providers
Read-onlyIdempotent

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityNoCity name to filter by (partial match supported)
pageNoPage number for pagination (default 1)
stateNoTwo-letter state abbreviation (e.g. 'TX'). Send as `state`, not `state_abbr` (`state_abbr` is an output field name only). National providers always included.
categoryYesService 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_pageNoResults per page (1-25, default 10)
min_ratingNoMinimum quality score (0-100). Most providers score 50-85. The parameter is named `min_rating`, not `min_quality_score`.
tier1_gradeNoFilter 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_fitNoFilter providers by the practice size they best serve.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsNoAbsent when isError.
countNoTotal matching providers across all pages; absent when isError.
contentYes
isErrorNoPresent and true only on failure.

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters5/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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.

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