Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cms-datagov-mcp-server

cms-datagov-mcp-server

by clarifyhealth
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

cms_get_dataset

Retrieve detailed metadata, API endpoints, CSV download URLs, and usage information for a specific CMS healthcare dataset by its unique ID.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific CMS dataset by its ID. Returns metadata, API endpoints, CSV download URLs, and usage information.

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": {
      "dataset_id": "<dataset_id>"
    },
    "name": "cms_get_dataset"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataset_idYesThe unique identifier (UUID) of the dataset

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.4

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only lookup and the description helpfully enumerates the return payload (metadata, endpoints, CSV URLs, usage info), but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior.

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?

Two compact sentences, with the core action front-loaded before the return-value enumeration. The return list is slightly long but each item is informative rather than filler.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by summarizing what is returned. It is near-complete; only the sibling routing and prerequisite information are missing.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented (UUID format) in the schema. The description's 'by its ID' only echoes that, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema baseline.

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+resource ('Get detailed information about a specific CMS dataset') and the lookup key ('by its ID'). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like cms_get_csv_link, which its return-value list (CSV download URLs) partially overlaps 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?

The only usage signal is the implicit 'by its ID', meaning the agent must already possess the identifier. There is no statement of when to use this versus cms_search_datasets or cms_get_dataset_stats, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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