Govparse Government Data Gateway

cms_timely_care_search

How is a hospital's emergency department performing on CMS timely-care measures? Search CMS 'Timely and Effective Care - Hospital' by state, facility_id (CCN), measure (OP_18b median ED time, OP_22 left-without-being-seen, SEP_1...), condition, city, min/max score, reporting-period end, or latest_only. Returns per-hospital score, sample, measure period, and snapshot. CMS Care Compare public-domain records. [price: $0.05/row]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`city`	No	City fragment.
`sort`	No	score \| sample \| period_end :asc\|:desc.
`limit`	No	Max rows (default 25, cap 100).
`state`	No	Hospital state code(s), CSV.
`offset`	No	Rows to skip.
`measure`	No	Measure id(s), CSV (OP_18b, OP_22, SEP_1...).
`condition`	No	Condition fragment.
`max_score`	No	Maximum numeric score.
`min_score`	No	Minimum numeric score.
`period_end`	No	Exact reporting-period end date (YYYY-MM-DD).
`facility_id`	No	CMS CCN(s), CSV.
`latest_only`	No	true = only each facility×measure's most recent period.

Schema Changelog

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

AddedJul 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return fields (score, sample, period, snapshot) and notes it's public-domain, but does not mention auth, rate limits, error handling, or confirm read-only behavior. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two-sentence description plus pricing note. Front-loaded with the core question, then enumerates filterable fields, then states returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given 12 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains data source (CMS Care Compare) and pricing, and lists key outputs. Could elaborate on output structure but sufficient.

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% (all 12 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by listing example measures, hinting at CSV usage for state/facility_id/measure, and mentioning min/max score and latest_only. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states verb (search), resource (CMS timely-care measures for hospitals), and scope (emergency department). It lists key parameters and return fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cms_timely_care_delta, so it misses some distinction.

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?

Description implies usage for retrieving timely-care measures by various filters but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or context for selection among siblings.

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

All Govparse Government Data Gateway 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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct domain and specific action (e.g., FDA approvals vs clearances vs recalls; firmstanding business360 dossier vs search vs screen). Even overlapping concepts like 'business360' vs 'business360_lookup' are distinguished by input (UUID vs name+state). No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use a consistent lowercase snake_case pattern with domain prefix (e.g., fda_*, firmstanding_*, fmcsa_*, govcon_*). Action words (search, lookup, screen, feed, stats) follow predictable usage. The naming is uniform and easy to parse.

Tool Count4/5

38 tools is on the higher end but appropriate for a comprehensive government data gateway spanning multiple agencies and datasets. Each domain has a reasonable number of tools (e.g., FMCSA: 7, OFLC: 6). Could potentially be trimmed slightly, but overall well-scoped for the stated purpose.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the major government data sources comprehensively: FDA (approvals, clearances, recalls), FMCSA (carrier census, safety, insurance, etc.), FSIS, DOJ/OFLC, OSHA/EPA/DOL enforcement, SEC insider filings, clinical trials, VA facilities/opportunities/vendors, and federal contracting. No obvious gaps for the stated gateway purpose.

Resources

Need Help?