Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bsp-mcp

bsp-mcp

Official
by Biological-Sovereignty-Protocol
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

bsp_list_ieos

List registered healthcare entities (IEOs) on the BSP network to discover clinics, labs, or insurers. Supports type filters and pagination for precise results.

Instructions

List registered IEOs on the BSP network

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "bsp_list_ieos"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoFilter by IEO type (e.g. "clinic", "lab", "insurer").
limitNoMaximum number of IEOs to return (default: 20, max: 100).
offsetNoNumber of records to skip for pagination (default: 0).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether listing is read-only, how pagination behaves, or what fields are returned. 'List' implies a query, but no operational context is added beyond parameter defaults.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action immediately. It contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, a complete description would need to disclose read-only semantics, return shape, or default behavior. It provides none of this, leaving an agent uncertain about response format and potential side effects.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for type, limit, and offset including defaults and max. With high schema coverage, the description is not required to repeat parameter details, and it does not add any beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'List' and resource 'registered IEOs on the BSP network'. The word 'registered' adds scope beyond the name, and the entity type IEO clearly distinguishes it from sibling bsp_list_beos.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of bsp_list_beos or any conditions for filtering by type, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools