Claim Back

Work out an appeal deadline

appeal_deadline

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calendar arithmetic for Medicare Advantage appeal deadlines. Give notice_date (the date printed on the plan’s denial notice) for the plan reconsideration deadline: 65 days from that date (the rule is 60 days from receipt, presumed 5 days after the date). Or give care_end_date (the date covered skilled nursing, home health or outpatient rehab care ends, on the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage), and notice_delivered_date (the day that notice was handed over) if known, for the fast appeal: by noon of the day after delivery; without the delivery date, noon the day before the end date, which holds only for a notice that came two days ahead. The notice’s own instructions come first.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "appeal_deadline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notice_date`	No	The date printed on the denial notice, YYYY-MM-DD.
`care_end_date`	No	The date covered care ends, from the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage, YYYY-MM-DD.
`notice_delivered_date`	No	The day the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage was delivered, YYYY-MM-DD (with care_end_date).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / notice_delivered_date

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The day the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage was delivered, YYYY-MM-DD (with care_end_date).",
+  "pattern": "^\\d{4}-\\d{2}-\\d{2}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the exact legal rules: 65 days from notice_date (60 days from receipt, presumed 5 days after the date), fast appeal timing with and without delivery date, and the condition that the fallback 'holds only for a notice that came two days ahead.' This is rich behavioral context not present in 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 then packs dense domain rules into two sentences. It is efficient but somewhat hard to parse due to the compressed legal detail; a bulleted structure might improve scannability, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Given the tool’s complexity (legal deadline calculation with optional parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides enough rule detail to invoke it correctly. However, it does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a date string or object), leaving a small gap in completeness.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how each parameter maps to a distinct deadline scenario and what happens when notice_delivered_date is omitted. It clarifies conditional logic and assumptions that the bare schema descriptions do not provide.

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 opens with 'Calendar arithmetic for Medicare Advantage appeal deadlines,' a specific verb-and-resource statement that clearly distinguishes this calculation tool from its siblings. An agent immediately knows this computes deadlines, not retrieves or modifies records.

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 routes the agent: 'Give notice_date... for the plan reconsideration deadline' versus 'Or give care_end_date... for the fast appeal,' and adds the guardrail 'The notice’s own instructions come first.' This is precise when-to-use guidance with a clear caveat, leaving little to inference.

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

All Claim Back 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.

Resources

Need Help?