Cms Open Payments

Open Payments Search

open_payments_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

THE source for pharma/device industry money to doctors — "payments from manufacturers to physicians", "which drug companies paid this doctor", "Sunshine Act data", "industry payments to hospitals". Search one CMS Open Payments program-year dataset using structured recipient, company, product, geography, payment-nature, and amount filters. CAPABILITY LIMIT, state it rather than guessing: this source can look up and filter but CANNOT rank ALL manufacturers by total spend ("which manufacturer paid the most" is not computable live — the 14M-row aggregation times out upstream); answer those by saying so and offering a named-company lookup (open_payments_company) instead. CMS publishes company-reported relationships; a payment does not imply wrongdoing or a conflict.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`year`	No	Program year (2019-current published year; default latest).
`limit`	No	Results (1-100, default 25).
`state`	No	Exact two-letter recipient state.
`nature`	No	Exact nature of payment.
`offset`	No	Pagination offset (0-10000).
`company`	No	Case-insensitive company-name substring.
`product`	No	Case-insensitive associated-product substring across all five product fields.
`payment_type`	No	Default General.
`recipient_npi`	No	Exact 10-digit NPI.
`minimum_amount`	No	Minimum reported payment in USD.
`recipient_last_name`	No	Exact recipient last name. CMS stores names uppercase; case is normalized for you. Pair with recipient_first_name — a common surname alone matches many practitioners.
`recipient_first_name`	No	Exact recipient first name, to disambiguate a common surname (e.g. last_name "PATEL" + first_name "RIPAL").

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dataset`	Yes
`payments`	Yes
`returned`	Yes
`payment_type`	Yes
`program_year`	Yes
`total_matches`	Yes
`interpretation`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

First observedJul 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, destructive=false), the description reveals a critical behavioral limitation: the 14M-row aggregation times out, so 'which manufacturer paid the most' is not computable live. It also contextualizes the data as company-reported, implying no judgment about wrongdoing or conflict.

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 front-loaded with purpose and includes a clear capability limit and alternative. It is a bit verbose with promotional opening ('THE source for') and keyword aliases, but each section earns its place and the structure is logical.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 12-parameter tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, filter types, known limitations, alternative tools, and data interpretation. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions filter categories (recipient, company, product, geography, payment-nature, amount) which roughly map to parameters, but it does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. No additional semantic enrichment is present.

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 searches one CMS Open Payments dataset with specific filter types (recipient, company, product, geography, payment-nature, amount). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming a capability limitation and pointing to open_payments_company as the alternative for ranking queries.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-not guidance: it cannot rank all manufacturers by total spend, and directs users to open_payments_company instead. It also frames the tool as appropriate for structured lookups and filters, which clarifies when to use it over other Open Payments sibling 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 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.

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.

Open Payments Search

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources