Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Mi Medical Exclusions

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Mi Medical Exclusion Coverage

mi_medical_exclusion_coverage
Read-onlyIdempotent

What the Michigan MDHHS List of Sanctioned Providers covers and how current it is: total rows, counts by sanction source (MDHHS, MDHHS-OIG, LARA, DCH, HHS), individuals vs businesses, how many carry an NPI, license number or reason, oldest and newest sanction date, and the list's own publication date. Use to check the screening data is fresh enough before a compliance decision. Pass year (e.g. 2025) or start_date/end_date to instead COUNT how many sanctions have a sanction date in that year or range, counted over the whole list rather than a page, split by sanction source. The response names the date field counted (sanction_date, the first Sanction Date column, never the second date). 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": "mi_medical_exclusion_coverage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearNoCount records whose date field falls in this calendar year (e.g. 2025), counted over the WHOLE list, not a page. Ignored if start_date/end_date are given.
end_dateNoInclusive range end, YYYY-MM-DD. Use with start_date for a custom date range instead of a calendar year.
start_dateNoInclusive range start, YYYY-MM-DD. Use with end_date for a custom date range instead of a calendar year.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations: keyless access, MDHHS sourcing, counting over the whole list rather than a page, and — importantly — that the counted field is the first Sanction Date column and never the second. These are behavioral details an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

All content is relevant and the primary purpose leads, but it is delivered as one long run-on paragraph with the two modes interleaved. Splitting the coverage-report mode from the date-counting mode would make it easier to scan.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the return contents in detail (row totals, source breakdown, entity type split, field coverage, oldest/newest date, publication date) and describes the alternate counting response. An agent can decide and interpret results without further information.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: the result is split by sanction source and counts the whole list, not a page, and year precedence over start/end is reinforced. Value is added above the schema without introducing syntax details the schema lacks.

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?

States precisely what the resource is (Michigan MDHHS List of Sanctioned Providers coverage metadata) as a specific verb+resource: report total rows, counts by sanction source, individuals vs businesses, NPI/license/reason coverage, and date bounds. Its role is clearly separated from a per-provider lookup like mi_medical_check_exclusion, and the alternate date-range counting mode is spelled out.

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?

Explicit trigger: 'Use to check the screening data is fresh enough before a compliance decision,' plus when to supply year or start_date/end_date. It doesn't name the sibling tool (mi_medical_check_exclusion) or state when not to use this one, which keeps it short of a 5.

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