costkits-mcp

Official

by costkits

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: analyzing bills, calculating insurance liability, estimating costs, finding providers, obtaining coverage details, etc. There is minimal overlap, and composite tools like full_estimate are clearly defined as aggregations of other functionalities.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., analyze_bill, calculate_liability, list_procedures). Even demo_estimate and full_estimate fit the pattern, using descriptive verbs. No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for medical cost estimation. The number is neither too few nor excessive; each tool serves a necessary function in the workflow, from procedure resolution to provider search and liability calculation.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of cost estimation: procedure lookup, fuzzy matching, cost estimation, provider discovery, insurance coverage, liability calculation, bill analysis, and a composite endpoint. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.
Average 4.2/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 18 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 8, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

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. It adds behavioral context by describing each aspect (e.g., 'triggers' for Pro plan billing events). However, it does not disclose other behaviors like authentication, rate limits, or error handling.
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 concise, consisting of one sentence plus a parenthetical enumeration. However, the enumeration is a bit dense; a list format might improve readability. It efficiently uses space without redundancy.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description does not explain return values or structure, which is a gap. It adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameters but lacks completeness in explaining what the agent can expect as a result.
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?
The schema description coverage is 75%, but the description adds significant value for the 'aspect' parameter by explaining each enum value. For 'procedure' and 'carrier', the description reiterates schema info without much additional detail. Overall, it enriches parameter understanding.
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's purpose: retrieving insurance coverage rules for a specific procedure/carrier combination. It lists the available aspects, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'estimate_procedure_cost' (cost) or 'find_providers' (providers).
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?
The description explains what aspects are available and hints at when to use each, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or specify when not to use this tool. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It mentions pagination, which is a behavioral trait, but does not disclose read-only nature or any side effects. For a list tool, this is minimally adequate.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the most important information, no wasted words.
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 list tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context about what is returned (specific fields) and pagination behavior. Minor missing details like ordering are acceptable.
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 50% (only 'cursor' has a description). The description mentions 'paginated' which implies cursor/limit usage, but does not explain the 'limit' parameter or acceptable values. It adds some context but does not fully compensate for the schema gap.
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 verb 'list' (implied by 'catalog'), the resource '30 procedures', and the specific returned fields ('slugs, display names, categories, and CPT codes'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_procedure_details' which likely returns more detail.
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?
The description implies this tool is for a general catalog listing, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_procedure_details' or 'resolve_procedure'. No guidance on prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool chains multiple services in one metered request and is the cheapest way. However, it does not mention any destructive behavior, authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects. The behavioral insight is moderate.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is earned, no fluff. Jargon like 'procedure ontology' is concise and targeted to the domain.
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?
Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and medium complexity, the description covers the main concepts but lacks details on return format, what 'procedure ontology' means, and the distinction between plan_* inputs. It is adequate but has gaps.
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 50%, and the description adds meaning by stating that liability requires plan_* inputs, implying their purpose. It does not detail each parameter individually. This adds some value beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the uncovered parameters.
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's purpose: to get a complete estimate including procedure ontology, cost, providers, and liability in one call. The phrase 'one call chaining' and 'cheapest way' distinguishes it from similar tools that might handle only one aspect.
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?
The description provides guidance on using the 'fields' parameter to request subsets and mentions that liability requires plan_* inputs. It does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like estimate_procedure_cost or find_providers, but the context implies when to consider this tool for a complete picture.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only 'Public profile' operation and lists returned fields. However, it does not mention permissions, limitations, or potential side effects, which is acceptable for a simple lookup but could be more transparent.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key details. It is concise with no wasted words.
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 lookup, the description adequately explains what the tool does and the data returned. However, without an output schema, more detail on the return format could enhance completeness.
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 the parameter 'npi' described as '10-digit NPI number'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 retrieves a public profile for a single provider using a 10-digit NPI number, specifying the returned fields (name, specialty, address, entity type). This distinguishes it from sibling tool 'find_providers' which likely searches for multiple providers.
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?
The description implies usage when you have an NPI and need provider details. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for searching without an NPI), but the context from sibling tools provides some differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the core matching behavior and output (slug with confidence scores). However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, which is acceptable for a lookup but could be improved.
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 sentences: first defines purpose, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return value (slug and confidence scores). It provides workflow context with sibling tools. Could mention prerequisites or side effects but overall complete for a resolver.
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 one parameter 'query' described as 'Free-text procedure name'. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, consistent with high-coverage baseline.
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 fuzzy-matches a free-text procedure name to a canonical slug with confidence scores. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings like list_procedures and estimate_procedure_cost.
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?
The description explicitly says 'Call this BEFORE estimate tools whenever the user's wording might not be an exact slug.' This gives clear context and when to use, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses the tool's stateless nature and pure calculation behavior. It lists inputs and outputs comprehensively, including 'p25/p75 scenarios'. No contradictory annotations exist.
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?
The description is a single, dense sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, inputs, outputs, and use case. It is front-loaded with 'Stateless insurance math', immediately informing the agent of the tool's nature. No filler words.
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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the core function and highlights key output types. It implicitly differentiates from siblings via the 'already have a dollar amount' clause. While the output structure is not detailed, the description covers essential aspects.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by mapping inputs to real-world concepts ('plan snapshot (deductible, coinsurance, OOP max)'), but does not elaborate on optional parameters like 'copay' or 'preventive_exception'. The mention of 'p25/p75 scenarios' hints at additional computation not in schema, adding slight value.
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 performs 'stateless insurance math' to compute liability details, with specific inputs (allowed amount, plan snapshot) and outputs (patient responsibility, plan payment, breakdown, p25/p75 scenarios). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'estimate_procedure_cost' by specifying use case: when you already have a dollar amount.
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?
The description includes explicit guidance: 'Use when you already have a dollar amount (e.g., from an EOB or a prior estimate).' This clarifies when to use this tool versus other estimation tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It describes the tool as a read-only knowledge retrieval operation, but lacks explicit statements about safety (e.g., no side effects, auth requirements) or handling of invalid slugs. The behavior is adequately conveyed for a straightforward retrieval tool.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('structured knowledge about one procedure') and then lists the three aspects using semicolons. Every part is informative with no wasted words.
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 the tool has no output schema and is a retrieval tool, the description adequately covers its functionality. It explains the three aspects and their intent. However, it could hint at the return format (e.g., 'structured knowledge' is vague) or mention that results are LLM-ready. Overall, it is fairly complete for its complexity.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying the 'aspect' enum values with specific use cases (LLM-ready billing rules, bundle explanation, full ontology) and provides an example for 'slug' ('colonoscopy').
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 provides 'structured knowledge about one procedure' and explains three specific aspects ('facts', 'bundle', 'full'). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like 'estimate_procedure_cost' or 'analyze_bill' which focus on financial calculations.
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?
The description explicitly describes when to use each aspect: 'facts' for grounding answers, 'bundle' for explaining expected bills, 'full' for complete ontology. It implicitly guides against using this tool for cost estimation or billing analysis, but does not explicitly state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions the tool works on the Free plan and serves as a sanity check, implying successful responses confirm valid API keys. However, it does not describe output format or potential errors.
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 sentences, no wasted words. Immediately conveys the purpose and a key use case. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool returns and gives a usage hint. Could specify the return type (array of strings) but not required for a simple list.
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?
No parameters. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no param-specific info, which is fine since none exist.
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 it lists all insurance carrier keys supported by coverage tools, with examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform calculations or queries on procedures and providers.
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?
States it works on the Free plan and is a good API-key sanity check. This provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives (none exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It mentions it's a static sample (fixed data) and requires no authentication, setting expectations for behavior. It could add more details about the response but is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
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 sentences with no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose and key usage details.
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 it's a demo with no output schema and 0 parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and use case sufficiently. It could mention the limitation of being a single sample, but it's complete enough.
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?
Input schema has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4; description adds context that it's a fixed sample, which is adequate.
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 provides a static sample cost estimate for a colonoscopy in Connecticut from the CostKits API, immediately distinguishing it from other tools by being a demo that requires no API key.
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?
It explicitly states it works with no API key and is for verifying connectivity and seeing response shape, implying it's for testing/setup. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., for real cost estimates) or compare with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that outputs include ranges (not single numbers), conditional out-of-pocket calculation based on insurance details, and the need to resolve free-text procedures. It does not mention authorization requirements or side effects, but the behavioral description is sufficiently detailed for an estimation tool.
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?
The description is two sentences long, with the first sentence immediately stating the primary purpose and outputs. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence is purposeful.
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 the complexity (7 params, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: inputs, conditional logic, output format (ranges, data_vintage), and a cross-reference to resolve_procedure. It could be more explicit about return value structure, but it is complete enough for selection.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that insurance parameters (oop_remaining, coinsurance_pct, deductible_remaining) trigger out-of-pocket estimation and clarifying acceptable inputs for 'procedure' (slug or plain name).
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 uses specific verbs ('Estimate') and identifies the resource ('medical procedure costs in a US state'). It enumerates distinct outputs (allowed-amount range, billing components, risk flags, out-of-pocket) and hints at the prerequisite use of resolve_procedure, distinguishing it from sibling tools.
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?
The description explicitly advises using resolve_procedure first for free-text procedure names, and instructs to present ranges and cite data_vintage. However, it does not provide guidance on when to choose this tool over other siblings like full_estimate or demo_estimate, though the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses pricing_data provenance (hospital transparency data) and behavior of cluster parameter, but does not explicitly state read-only nature or any side effects.
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 sentences, no waste. Purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. Well-structured and efficient.
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 4-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter hints, and data quality. Could mention pagination or response structure, but it's 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%, but description adds meaning: explains that cluster=true groups by city with lat/lng, procedure accepts slug or plain name, and limit defaults to 25. It also clarifies pricing_status field values.
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 'Find healthcare providers for a procedure in a US state', specifying the verb (find), resource (providers), and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_bill or estimate_procedure_cost by focusing on provider search with pricing status.
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?
The description explains when to use cluster mode and notes preference for 'observed' pricing status, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like get_provider or list_providers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is stateless, returns risk score/flags/summary, and explicitly prohibits patient identity fields. No contradictions.
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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description explains what anomalies are detected and what is returned. It is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (line_items). The description adds a usage constraint but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema's property descriptions.
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 detects anomalies in medical bill line items, listing specific types (duplicate charges, unbundling, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like estimate_procedure_cost or calculate_liability by focusing on anomaly detection.
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?
The description advises sending only codes and amounts, never patient identity fields, and notes the 'Pro plan' requirement. While not explicitly stating when not to use, the context signals and sibling names imply appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![costkits-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/costkits/costkits-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/costkits/costkits-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![costkits-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/costkits/costkits-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/costkits/costkits-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/costkits/costkits-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server