Skip to main content
Glama

Pending Medicare Enrollment Data

Server Details

Behavioral health NPIs newly pending Medicare provider enrollment; free validated preview.

Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Repository
unitedideas/pending-medicare-mcp
GitHub Stars
0

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

Full call logging

Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.

Tool access control

Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.

Managed credentials

Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.

Usage analytics

See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4.4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no ambiguity with other tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

With a single tool, naming consistency is perfect by default.

Tool Count3/5

One tool is minimal but may be appropriate for a preview-only scope; however, the domain suggests additional tools would be useful.

Completeness2/5

The tool only provides a preview; missing functionality for full data retrieval or purchase, which is hinted but not implemented.

Available Tools

1 tool
get_pending_medicare_behavioral_health_previewGet pending Medicare behavioral-health data previewA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Return the current validated 10-row public preview of behavioral-health NPIs newly present in CMS pending first-time Medicare enrollment files, with source dates, national counts, limitations, and an optional buyer-funded full-edition handoff. This read-only tool cannot start an Apify run, open checkout, contact applicants, or purchase anything.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statesNoOptional two-letter state or territory codes used to filter the public 10-row preview.
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes further by explicitly listing actions the tool cannot perform (start Apify run, open checkout, contact applicants, purchase). This adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations, with no contradiction.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys all necessary information, but it is long and could be structured as two sentences for better readability. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, earning a 4.

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?

Given only one optional parameter, no output schema, and no sibling tools, the description fully covers what the tool returns, filtering capability, limitations, and what it cannot do. No gaps remain.

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 100% with the 'states' parameter well-described in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond mentioning filtering; thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a 10-row public preview of behavioral-health NPIs from CMS, including specific details like source dates, national counts, and limitations. The verb 'Return' and resource are unambiguous, and since there are no sibling tools, it effectively distinguishes its function.

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?

While the description explains what the tool does, it does not explicitly state when to use it or provide alternatives. However, with no sibling tools, the usage context is clear. A slight score reduction for missing explicit 'when to use' guidance.

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

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.