Skip to main content
Glama

Cms Open Payments

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Open Payments Product History

open_payments_product_history
Read-onlyIdempotent

Build a cross-year general-payment history for a reported product-name substring across CMS product slots. Product association is reporter-supplied; sample dollar amounts are not complete annual totals.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
companyNo
productYes
to_yearNo
from_yearNo
sample_per_yearNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearsYes
interpretationYes
sampled_recordsYes
sampled_amount_usdYes
total_matches_across_yearsYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that product association is reporter-supplied and sample dollar amounts are not complete annual totals. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), alerting the agent to data reliability issues.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main function. Every sentence adds value without waste. The second sentence provides crucial caveats.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description gives a high-level understanding but lacks details on parameter constraints (e.g., inclusive years, sample_per_year behavior, output format). The presence of an output schema mitigates some completeness concerns, but for a 5-parameter tool, more context is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains 'product' as a name substring and implies year range parameters, but it does not explain the 'company' or 'sample_per_year' parameters. The meaning of sample_per_year is only loosely hinted.

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 clearly states that the tool builds a cross-year payment history for a product name substring. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on product history across years. The added detail about reporter-supplied association adds specificity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool is for product history across years but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'open_payments_product' or 'open_payments_company_history'. No when-not or usage exclusions are provided.

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

All Cms Open Payments 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are very similar, causing potential confusion. The open_payments_* tools are clearly differentiated, but the mix of generic Pipeworx tools with domain-specific ones creates overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix conventions: some use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, open_payments_company), while others use less consistent patterns (deep_research, generate_llms_txt). The open_payments_* tools have a consistent prefix, but the overall set lacks a unified naming scheme.

Tool Count2/5

With 41 tools, the server is heavily overloaded for a domain focused on CMS Open Payments. The majority of tools are general-purpose Pipeworx tools unrelated to the server's name, making the count feel excessive and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The open_payments_* tools cover the CMS Open Payments domain well (search, company, physician, history, etc.). However, the inclusion of many unrelated Pipeworx tools means the server as a whole is not cohesive, and the completeness of the named domain is overshadowed.

Resources