Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Mi Medical Exclusions

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Mi Medical Check Exclusion

mi_medical_check_exclusion
Read-onlyIdempotent

Is this healthcare provider sanctioned or excluded from the Michigan Medicaid program? Screens a person or business name, an NPI, and/or a license number against the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) List of Sanctioned Providers, which merges sanctions from MDHHS, its Office of Inspector General, Licensing and Regulatory Affairs and HHS. State-level counterpart to the federal HHS OIG LEIE (leie pack) for Michigan, sibling of il_medical_check_exclusion, tx_medical_check_exclusion, ny_omig_check_exclusion and ca_medical_check_exclusion. Answers "is this provider on the Michigan Medicaid sanction list", "check this NPI against Michigan sanctions", or pre-payment/credentialing screening for a Michigan Medicaid provider. An NPI or license-number match is an IDENTIFICATION; a name match, even an exact one, is a CANDIDATE lead only (no date of birth is published). Each match carries the sanction date and source, a second sanction date and source where present (often the action being lifted), the provider category and MDHHS's free-text reason (blank on about 60% of rows). The response leads with counts by sanction source. City is served for businesses only; no street addresses. Sourced from MDHHS, keyless.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "1st Priority Physical Therapy"
    },
    "name": "mi_medical_check_exclusion"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
npiNoThe provider's 10-digit NPI, if known. An NPI match is an identification. Always pass it when known.
nameNoProvider or business name to screen, e.g. "1st Priority Physical Therapy" or "Oshiyoye". Any word order.
limitNoMaximum matches to return (default 10, max 50).
licenseNoMichigan professional license number, if known. A license match is an identification.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial non-obvious context: NPI/license matches are identifications while even exact name matches are candidate leads because no DOB is published. It also discloses what rows contain, that the reason field is blank about 60% of the time, that second sanction dates often mean the action was lifted, that city is business-only, and that the source is keyless.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core question and resource, and nearly every sentence adds decision-relevant detail. The sibling enumeration is somewhat long, but it serves a real routing purpose; the text is dense rather than padded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining the response structure: counts by sanction source, sanction date and source, second date/source, provider category, and free-text reason caveats. It also covers the key limitation (no DOB, no street addresses) that an agent needs to avoid over-claiming a match.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions already carry the basics. The description still adds meaning by framing name screening as candidate-only and NPI/license screening as identification, and by noting no DOB is published. It does not mention the limit parameter's pagination behavior in the description, but that is already documented in the schema.

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 opens with a specific question the tool answers and names the exact resource: the MDHHS List of Sanctioned Providers. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the federal HHS OIG LEIE and from named state siblings, so an agent can route correctly without opening another schema.

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?

It states concrete use cases (pre-payment/credentialing screening for a Michigan Medicaid provider) and names the alternative federal source and sibling state tools. The identification-versus-candidate distinction also tells the agent how to interpret and act on results, which is usage guidance beyond simple routing.

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

All Mi Medical Exclusions toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources