MedPrice AI

Get hospital chargemaster cost

get_hospital_chargemaster_cost

Read-only

Lookup hospital chargemaster cost

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.
`revision_id`	No	Optional. A revision_id from list_hospitals' per-hospital revisions array, to price that specific past revision instead of the hospital's latest one. Omit to use the latest revision.

Output Schema

TableJSON 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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 13, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / revision_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. A revision_id from list_hospitals' per-hospital revisions array, to price that specific past revision instead of the hospital's latest one. Omit to use the latest revision.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedJul 7, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "cost": {
+      "properties": {
+        "avg": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "code": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "code_type": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "max": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "median": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "min": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "std_dev": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "description": {
+      "properties": {
+        "code_description": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "hospital_name": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "location": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "methodology_note": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "found": {
+      "description": "Whether a matching chargemaster cost record was found.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "hospital": {
+      "description": "Hospital name returned by the MedPrice AI backend.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedJun 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / hospital_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Opaque hospital identifier from list_hospitals.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "code_type",
-  "code"
-]New value: +[
+  "hospital_id",
+  "code_type",
+  "code"
+]

AddedJun 24, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the readOnlyHint annotation already conveys. It does not mention aggregation behavior, revision handling, or any other operational details, so the description carries minimal weight in this dimension.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not add new information, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Even though an output schema exists, the description is extremely thin. It lacks any context about the tool's functionality, how to select it over alternatives, or what edge cases exist. For a tool with five parameters and sibling relationships, this is insufficient.

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 high (80%), so the schema already documents most parameters effectively. The description itself adds no parameter information, which keeps the score at baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Lookup') and clearly identifies the resource ('hospital chargemaster cost'). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_hospital_code_costs, 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools list_hospital_code_costs or list_hospitals. The description offers no context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

All MedPrice AI tools Inspect

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.