MedPrice AI
Server Details
Hosted MCP server exposing US hospital procedure cost data to AI assistants
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have distinct purposes: one lists hospitals with metadata, the other retrieves cost data for a specific hospital. There is no overlap.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: list_hospitals and get_hospital_chargemaster_cost.
Two tools is minimal for a medical pricing API; while it covers listing and retrieval, the scope feels limited. It is borderline but not extreme.
The API lacks ability to search by procedure, compare costs, or filter hospitals. Only basic listing and single cost lookup are provided, which are significant gaps for typical use cases.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_hospital_chargemaster_costGet hospital chargemaster costCRead-onlyInspect
Lookup hospital chargemaster cost
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ||
| code_type | Yes | Code system the chargemaster/billing code belongs to, e.g. APR-DRG, CDM, CPT, HCPCS, MS-DRG, RC. Hospitals may also support additional proprietary code types not listed here. | |
| hospital_id | Yes | Opaque hospital identifier from list_hospitals. | |
| methodology | No | Pricing methodology. Omit to aggregate across all methodologies. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| cost | No | |
| found | No | Whether a matching chargemaster cost record was found. |
| hospital | No | Hospital name returned by the MedPrice AI backend. |
| description | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read behavior is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. The minimal description does not enhance transparency beyond 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 very short (one sentence), which is concise but at the expense of valuable information. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity results in under-specification.
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 that the tool has 4 parameters (3 required) and an output schema (not shown), the description is too sparse. It does not clarify what 'chargemaster cost' means, how pricing methodology affects results, or any edge cases. The presence of an output schema slightly reduces the need for return value explanation, but overall the description lacks contextual richness.
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 coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), but the tool description itself provides no parameter details. The undocumented 'code' parameter remains unexplained, and the description does not compensate for this gap. The description adds no value beyond the 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 uses a clear verb-resource pair ('Lookup hospital chargemaster cost') that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list_hospitals' by focusing on cost lookup rather than listing.
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?
No guidance on when to use or when to avoid this tool. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives beyond the sibling list, which limits its utility for an AI agent deciding between tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_hospitalsList supported hospitalsARead-onlyInspect
Returns the hospitals supported by the medprice.ai API, with their hospital_id (opaque DB key), EIN, name, locations, and last_updated_on. Supports pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_size | No | Maximum number of hospitals to return. Defaults to 20, capped at 100. | |
| page_token | No | Opaque token from a previous list_hospitals response. Omit for the first page. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| hospitals | No | |
| next_page_token | No | Opaque pagination token, empty when there are no more results. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds some value by specifying the returned fields and pagination support. However, it does not discuss potential performance characteristics or rate limits beyond pagination.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no wasted words.
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 presence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, the description adequately covers purpose, result fields, and pagination. It could optionally mention that an empty result is possible, but this is not a major gap.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only confirms pagination support, which is already implied by the parameters.
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 that the tool returns the hospitals supported by the medprice.ai API, with specific fields listed (hospital_id, EIN, name, locations, last_updated_on). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_hospital_chargemaster_cost, which presumably retrieves cost data for a specific hospital.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but it mentions pagination and the sibling tool is named, implying this is for initial listing. However, no exclusion criteria or prerequisites are provided.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!