Skip to main content
Glama

Cms Open Payments

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Open Payments Recipient History

open_payments_recipient_history
Read-onlyIdempotent

Build a cross-year CMS Open Payments history for an exact recipient NPI. Returns authoritative annual match counts plus bounded samples; sampled dollar totals are explicitly not full-dataset totals.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
npiYes
to_yearNo
from_yearNo
payment_typeNo
sample_per_yearNoRows per year (1-100, default 25).

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral context: the tool returns bounded samples and explicitly avoids full-dataset totals. No contradictions with 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The purpose is stated first, followed by essential output behavior. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and key behavioral nuance (sampling caveat). It could mention what happens on invalid NPI or no data, but the output schema likely handles return format.

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 very low (20%, only sample_per_year described). The description adds context for 'exact recipient NPI' and 'cross-year' (implying from_year/to_year) but does not explain npi format, payment_type enum meanings, or bounds. It partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('build') and resource ('cross-year CMS Open Payments history'), and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on exact recipient NPI and cross-year scope. It also states key output characteristics (annual match counts bounded samples) with a caveat about dollar totals.

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?

The description implies when to use (for exact NPI cross-year history) and warns about output limitations (sampled totals not full). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among the many sibling payment tools.

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