Skip to main content
Glama

Med Bill Check

Draft a letter to a billing office for the user to send

draft_bill_letter
Read-onlyIdempotent

Draft a letter to a billing office for the user to send. Use for "help me dispute this bill", "write a letter asking for an itemized bill", "can I ask for a discount?" or "how do I apply for charity care?". Returns a letter as plain text with [brackets] for anything not given, tips, and the user's No Surprises Act and Good Faith Estimate rights with official CMS links. It never sends anything.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoBilling code of the charge. With amount, a dispute letter adds Medicare's benchmark (for a hospital charge, the hospital outpatient rate as well as the doctor's part).
dateNoDate of service.
nameNoPatient or account holder name.
typeYesitemized (ask for an itemized bill), dispute (ask for a charge to be reviewed), discount (prompt-pay or self-pay discount), or assistance (financial assistance or charity care).
stateNoUS state, used for the benchmark in a dispute letter.
amountNoAmount charged or balance due, in US dollars.
reasonNoA sentence on what the user wants checked, for a dispute letter.
accountNoAccount or invoice number on the bill.
insuredNono if paying without insurance (self-pay), for a discount letter.
serviceNoThe service in plain words.
settingNooffice or facility (hospital or surgery center), for the benchmark in a dispute letter. ER visits and hospital clinic visits count as facility anyway.
providerNoHospital, clinic or provider name.
billed_byNoWhose bill the charge is on when the service was in a hospital: hospital (the hospital's own facility charge) or doctor (the doctor's or physician group's bill). Leave out if not known: the charge is then compared with both together.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not openWorld), and the description adds meaningful behavior on top: it discloses the return format (plain text with [brackets] for missing fields, plus tips and CMS rights links) and confirms 'It never sends anything.' With no output schema, this return-shape disclosure is genuinely valuable rather than redundant.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage triggers, then output and safety. It is appropriately sized for a 13-parameter tool, though the opening sentence slightly duplicates the title and the quoted trigger phrases consume space that could carry additional routing guidance.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 13-parameter, single-required-field tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggers, output format, and the critical 'never sends' fact. It leaves the per-parameter nuances to the schema (which is fully documented), so it is complete enough, missing only explicit sibling disambiguation.

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 schema already documents all 13 parameters, including the enums (type, insured, setting, billed_by) and conditional requirements. The description only restates the type categories via example phrases and adds no new syntax or format meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Draft a letter to a billing office') plus the output the user receives. The purpose is distinct from the sibling tools (check_price, check_whole_bill, look_up_hospital, search_services), which compute or look things up rather than compose a letter.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Maps four concrete user phrasings ('help me dispute this bill', 'write a letter asking for an itemized bill', 'ask for a discount', 'apply for charity care') directly onto the tool's letter types, giving strong when-to-use context. It does not, however, name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this one, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.