Consent-gated tools that turn user health notes into non-diagnostic appointment-prep materials.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.3/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: timeline building, symptom vocabulary organization, appointment brief creation, flare reflection, and brief rendering. The only close pair is prepare_appointment_brief and render_appointment_brief, but they represent different stages (content generation vs. presentation) and are dependent rather than overlapping. No ambiguity in selection.
Most tools follow the verb_noun pattern (build_health_timeline, find_symptom_words, prepare_appointment_brief, render_appointment_brief). The exception is reflect_on_flare, which uses verb_preposition_noun, a minor deviation. Overall the pattern is predictable and readable.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of organizing non-identifying health information. Each tool addresses a specific step in the workflow, and none feel redundant or unnecessary. The count falls comfortably within the ideal range.
The tool set covers the core workflow of capturing, structuring, and presenting health observations, including timeline, symptom vocabulary, appointment brief, and flare reflection. Minor gaps exist, such as no update/delete functionality for existing data and no export tool, but these are not critical for the primary use case and can be worked around.
build_health_timelineBuild health timelineAAfter explicit consent, sort only non-identifying, user-authored observations into a factual chronology while preserving uncertainty. Do not accept PHI or invent dates or diagnoses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| observations | Yes | ||
| consentConfirmed | Yes | Set to true only after the user explicitly agrees to transient processing of their non-identifying, user-authored health notes. Do not submit PHI, medical-record identifiers, contact details, credentials, or provider documents. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| timeline | Yes | |
| disclaimer | Yes | |
| changePoints | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. Description adds important behavioral requirements: explicit consent, rejection of PHI, preservation of uncertainty, and prohibition on inventing dates/diagnoses. This goes beyond structured annotations and gives the agent operational guardrails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two succinct sentences convey the core action and key prohibitions. No wasted words; essential information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description sufficiently covers input requirements, safety constraints, and purpose. It does not need to describe return values due to output schema. The description is complete enough to guide selection and invocation among sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the observations parameter by clarifying they are user-authored and non-identifying, and to consentConfirmed by insisting on explicit consent. Schema coverage is moderate (50%), and the description compensates by setting context, though it doesn't detail individual fields beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: sorting user-authored observations into a chronological timeline while preserving uncertainty. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., find_symptom_words, render_appointment_brief) by focusing on chronological organization rather than searching or rendering. Includes constraints like 'non-identifying' and 'no PHI'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context for use: after explicit consent and with non-identifying user-authored observations. Mentions exclusions (do not accept PHI, do not invent dates/diagnoses). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so slightly below the highest bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_symptom_wordsFind symptom wordsAAfter explicit consent, organise only the user's non-identifying description into neutral sensation, timing, pattern, and impact vocabulary. Do not accept PHI or infer a diagnosis or cause.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| impact | No | ||
| timing | No | ||
| bodyArea | No | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| consentConfirmed | Yes | Set to true only after the user explicitly agrees to transient processing of their non-identifying, user-authored health notes. Do not submit PHI, medical-record identifiers, contact details, credentials, or provider documents. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| prompts | Yes | |
| disclaimer | Yes | |
| starterSentence | Yes | |
| originalDescription | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true), the description discloses critical behavioral traits: the requirement for explicit consent, the scope limited to non-identifying data, and prohibitions against PHI and diagnostic inference. This adds significant context beyond the structured annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the consent condition, then the core action, then constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the prerequisite (consent), the action (organising vocabulary), and key constraints (no PHI, no diagnosis). With an output schema present, return-value details are not necessary. Slight ambiguity remains about the exact categories, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a read-only transformation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only consentConfirmed has a description). The tool description does not explain the purpose or relationship of the other parameters (impact, timing, bodyArea), nor does it clarify how they map to the 'neutral sensation, timing, pattern, and impact vocabulary' mentioned. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource: 'organise only the user's non-identifying description into neutral sensation, timing, pattern, and impact vocabulary.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like build_health_timeline or render_appointment_brief, which focus on different healthcare activities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it must be used after explicit consent, only for non-identifying descriptions, and must not accept PHI or infer a diagnosis. It implies exclusions but does not explicitly name alternative tools or scenarios where a sibling would be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
prepare_appointment_briefPrepare appointment briefAAfter explicit consent, turn minimal non-identifying goals, changes, impact, user-stated medicines, and questions into a concise appointment brief. Do not accept PHI or provide medical advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| changes | No | ||
| impacts | No | ||
| mainGoal | Yes | ||
| medicines | No | ||
| questions | No | ||
| detailsToBring | No | ||
| consentConfirmed | Yes | Set to true only after the user explicitly agrees to transient processing of their non-identifying, user-authored health notes. Do not submit PHI, medical-record identifiers, contact details, credentials, or provider documents. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| changes | Yes | |
| impacts | Yes | |
| mainGoal | Yes | |
| medicines | Yes | |
| questions | Yes | |
| disclaimer | Yes | |
| detailsToBring | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the need for explicit consent and the prohibition on accepting PHI or providing medical advice. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't describe what happens if consent is missing or the exact output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the consent requirement, and each sentence serves a purpose: one defines the action and inputs, the other sets boundaries. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the availability of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the core purpose, consent, and constraints sufficiently. It does not mention the 'detailsToBring' parameter or explicitly relate to sibling rendering tools, but these are minor gaps given the other structured context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 14%, and the description partially compensates by naming most parameters in user-friendly terms (goals, changes, impact, medicines, questions). However, it omits 'detailsToBring' and does not clarify semantic differences or constraints beyond what the schema already specifies (e.g., max lengths). It provides moderate added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: turning specific input types into a concise appointment brief, with scope limited to non-identifying user-authored information. It also adds constraints (no PHI, no medical advice), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like render_appointment_brief, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied through the consent requirement and listed input types, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as render_appointment_brief or when not to use it. The description provides a clear precondition (explicit consent) but no exclusions or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
reflect_on_flareReflect on a flareAAfter explicit consent, structure only non-identifying, user-authored before, during, and after observations; turn suspected patterns into questions, not causal claims. Do not accept PHI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| during | No | ||
| recoveryAfter | No | ||
| baselineBefore | No | ||
| consentConfirmed | Yes | Set to true only after the user explicitly agrees to transient processing of their non-identifying, user-authored health notes. Do not submit PHI, medical-record identifiers, contact details, credentials, or provider documents. | |
| possiblePatterns | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| during | Yes | |
| disclaimer | Yes | |
| recoveryAfter | Yes | |
| baselineBefore | Yes | |
| possiblePatternsToObserve | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description reveals critical behavioral traits: it requires explicit user consent, restricts inputs to non-identifying user-authored notes, and mandates that output be phrased as questions rather than causal assertions. These are important privacy and safety behaviors that are not captured 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, with two sentences that front-load the consent prerequisite, then clearly convey the main action and the output framing. No words are wasted, and each sentence earns its place by adding critical operational or safety information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has five parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core semantics, consent requirement, PHI restriction, and output style. It does not detail the return structure, but the output schema is available to fill that gap. It lacks explicit mention of alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough, and the annotations and schema complete the picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is low (only consentConfirmed has a description), but the tool description compensates by labeling 'before, during, and after observations' which maps directly to baselineBefore, during, and recoveryAfter parameters, and 'suspected patterns' maps to possiblePatterns. It does not provide per-parameter examples or format details, but the semantic grouping is sufficient for an agent to infer parameter purposes.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: it structures non-identifying, user-authored before/during/after observations and transforms suspected patterns into questions. The verb 'structure' and 'turn' with specific objects distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'build_health_timeline' or 'prepare_appointment_brief', which focus on timeline construction or brief preparation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states a prerequisite ('After explicit consent') and a strict constraint ('Do not accept PHI'), which tells the agent when it is appropriate to use. It also instructs to frame patterns as questions rather than causal claims, providing a clear usage behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the purpose clarity indirectly provides this.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
render_appointment_briefRender appointment briefAAfter the user's existing consent, render the non-identifying output of prepare_appointment_brief as an accessible card. Call prepare_appointment_brief first; do not add PHI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| changes | Yes | ||
| impacts | Yes | ||
| mainGoal | Yes | ||
| medicines | Yes | ||
| questions | Yes | ||
| disclaimer | Yes | ||
| detailsToBring | Yes | ||
| consentConfirmed | Yes | Set to true only after the user explicitly agrees to transient processing of their non-identifying, user-authored health notes. Do not submit PHI, medical-record identifiers, contact details, credentials, or provider documents. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| changes | Yes | |
| impacts | Yes | |
| mainGoal | Yes | |
| medicines | Yes | |
| questions | Yes | |
| disclaimer | Yes | |
| detailsToBring | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by mentioning the consent requirement, the non-identifying nature of the data, and the PHI restriction, which are behavioral preconditions not captured in structured metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states purpose and prerequisite, the second states a constraint. It is front-loaded, free of fluff, and every word contributes meaning, making it an exemplary concise structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is straightforward as a rendering step, and the description links its input to prepare_appointment_brief, giving the agent a path to understand the parameters via the sibling tool. It also enforces consent via the schema. However, it does not describe the card structure or what happens if prerequisites are unmet, leaving some minor gaps given the 8-parameter schema and presence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 13% (only consentConfirmed has a description), yet the tool description does not explain any of the 8 parameters. It only hints that they are the output of prepare_appointment_brief, but without specific meanings for mainGoal, changes, impacts, etc., the agent cannot correctly populate these fields. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: rendering the non-identifying output of prepare_appointment_brief as an accessible card. It uses a specific verb ('render') and names the exact resource and output format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like build_health_timeline or reflect_on_flare.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs to call prepare_appointment_brief first, setting a clear prerequisite. It also specifies a constraint ('do not add PHI') and a precondition ('After the user's existing consent'), giving concrete guidance on when and how to use this tool vs. alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
