Skip to main content
Glama

Loa Healthcare Pricing

by io.github.aanari

Submit Entity Update Request

submit_entity_update_request
Idempotent

Submit a profile, listing, or price correction for Loa review without requiring a provider portal. This is the only mutating provider/entity tool. It requires OAuth, captures submitter and source evidence, records linked-provider status when available, and never changes public data until Loa approves the request.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
attestationNoHow the submitter is connected to the submitted evidence.
entity_slugNoExact Loa entity slug if entity_page_id is not available.
entity_typeNoEntity kind for the requested update; use unknown only when it cannot be determined.unknown
price_itemsNoOptional structured price rows proposed for Loa review.
source_urlsNoOptional public URLs reviewers can use to verify the submitted change.
request_typeYesType of reviewed change being requested.
source_notesNoShort verification notes, source context, or callback instructions.
entity_page_idNoLoa entity_pages.id for the provider or hospital.
submitter_nameNoName of the person submitting the request.
submitter_roleNoSubmitter role, such as billing manager or authorized agent.
idempotency_keyNoOptional stable retry key. Loa derives one from the payload if omitted.
submitter_emailYesWork email for the submitting representative.
submitter_phoneNoOptional callback phone number for reviewer follow-up.
proposed_changesNoStructured profile or listing fields proposed for Loa review.
uploaded_file_urlNoOptional public URL for an uploaded evidence file.
submitter_organizationNoProvider, hospital, or agent organization represented by the submitter.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
requestIdYes
entityPageIdYes
reusedExistingYes
updateRequestIdYes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Description reveals that public data is never changed until Loa approval, aligns with non-destructive annotation, and adds details about capturing submitter/source evidence and linked-provider status, going beyond annotations.

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?

Three succinct sentences front-load the purpose, uniqueness, and key behaviors with no redundancy.

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 complex 16-parameter tool with nested objects and an output schema, the description covers mutability, auth, and workflow. Lacks error or result details, but output schema likely covers return values.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond general behavioral context, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool submits profile, listing, or price corrections for review, and identifies itself as the only mutating provider/entity tool, distinguishing it from all read-only siblings.

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?

It explicitly states this is the only mutating tool, implying use for modifications, and mentions OAuth requirement. It implicitly differentiates from read-only siblings but lacks explicit 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 Loa Healthcare Pricing 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search tools cover different entities, pricing tools cover different scenarios (hospital, market, estimate), and the explanation and update tools are unique. No two tools overlap in function.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_, search_, explain_, suggest_, submit_), which is clear and predictable. However, the verbs are not uniform across all tools (e.g., 'get' vs 'search' for lookups), introducing slight inconsistency.

Tool Count5/5

With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for healthcare pricing. Each tool serves a necessary function—search, pricing variations, profile, explanation, and updates—without excess or deficiency.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full workflow: entity/code searching, multiple pricing queries, price source explanation, entity profiles, and update submissions. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.

Resources