Skip to main content
Glama
mymedi-ai-mcp-server

mymedi-ai-mcp-server

by MyMedi-AI

Medicare reimbursement rates (CMS PFS + OPPS)

code_reimbursement
Read-only

Look up Medicare reimbursement rates for a medical code and get RVU values plus estimated payment amounts using the PFS conversion factor.

Instructions

Look up Medicare reimbursement rates for a medical code. Returns RVU values and estimated payment amounts using the PFS conversion factor. Source: the current Medicare PFS (CMS RVU files).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "code_reimbursement"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesMedical code (e.g., "99213", "M79.3")
codeTypeNoCode system (auto-detected if omitted)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.7.9
    • addedInput schema / properties / code / maxLength
      Added value: +500
  2. Addedv1.2.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful provenance (CMS RVU files, PFS conversion factor) and states what is returned. It does not disclose data-year/freshness limits or behavior for unknown/unsupported codes, and it silently narrows the title's 'PFS + OPPS' claim to PFS only.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, with provenance last. Slightly redundant: 'PFS conversion factor' and 'Medicare PFS (CMS RVU files)' restate the same source twice.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description usefully names the return fields (RVUs, estimated payment), which is a real contribution. It still leaves gaps an agent would care about: whether OPPS facility rates are covered as the title implies, which payment year the RVU files represent, and error handling for invalid codes.

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%, including examples for `code` and an enum plus auto-detection note for `codeType`, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about code formats, auto-detection, or what happens when codeType conflicts with the supplied code.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Look up Medicare reimbursement rates for a medical code') and even names the output (RVU values, estimated payment). However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like reimbursement_basic or fee_schedule_lookup, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative sibling is named. The agent must infer from the name alone whether to call this or reimbursement_basic / fee_schedule_lookup / code_lookup_basic.

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