Skip to main content
Glama

Oig Sdp Check

oig_sdp_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Has this provider, grantee, or contractor settled a case under HHS-OIG's Self-Disclosure Protocol or Grant Self-Disclosure Program? Checks a name against the current list of settled self-disclosure enforcement actions — an exact title match is the strongest signal; a provider-name or token match is returned as a labelled CANDIDATE. For the best match, fetches the settlement's own detail page LIVE to return the exact settlement amount, the full entity description, and the complete allegation narrative — none of that is baked, so it is never stale (the headline figure is often a rounded approximation of it). Returns found:false with the list's as-of date and total settlement count when no match exists. Sourced from HHS-OIG, 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": "Tampa General Hospital",
      "limit": 5
    },
    "name": "oig_sdp_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesProvider, grantee, or contractor name to check, e.g. "Baptist Health Brookwood Hospital". Any word order; partial names are matched as candidates.
limitNoMaximum candidates to return (default 5, max 20). Only the top/best candidate is enriched with live detail-page data.
programNoRestrict the search to one program (default "all").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world safety, and the description adds real behavioral depth beyond them: a LIVE detail-page fetch for the best candidate, a no-staleness guarantee with the caveat that the headline figure is often a rounded approximation, and the found:false shape including as-of date and total count.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question and reads as an efficient if dense single paragraph; each sentence carries information. The parenthetical about the headline figure being a rounded approximation is slightly wordy but still earns its place as a data-quality caveat.

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys the return shape (found:false plus as-of date and total count; enriched amount, entity description, and allegation narrative on match), the data source, and the keyless access model. Nothing an agent needs to select and call it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by explaining matching semantics (exact title match is strongest, token/name matches returned as CANDIDATE) and that only the top/best candidate receives live enrichment, which shapes how limit and name should be chosen.

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 a specific verb and resource (checks a name against HHS-OIG Self-Disclosure Protocol settlements) and names the scope (provider/grantee/contractor, both programs). The 'check a name' framing cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling oig_sdp_recent, which implies a recency listing.

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?

Usage is implied clearly (verify whether an entity settled a self-disclosure case), and it explains match quality (exact title vs labelled CANDIDATE), but it never states when to reach for this vs oig_sdp_recent or entity_profile, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.