tebra-mcp-server

Create Patient

tebra_create_patient

Create a patient record in Tebra with demographics, address, insurance, and guarantor details, automatically using the account's first practice if none is specified.

Instructions

Create a new patient in Tebra with demographics, address, insurance, and guarantor information. The practice is required by Tebra; if practiceName/practiceId are omitted, the account's first practice is used automatically.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mrn`	No	Optional medical record number
`ssn`	No	Optional SSN
`city`	No	Optional city
`email`	No	Optional email address
`state`	No	Optional state (2-letter abbreviation)
`gender`	No	Optional gender (Tebra GenderCode: Male, Female, Unknown)
`zipCode`	No	Optional ZIP code
`address1`	No	Optional street address line 1
`address2`	No	Optional street address line 2
`lastName`	Yes	Patient last name
`firstName`	Yes	Patient first name
`guarantor`	No	Optional guarantor information
`homePhone`	No	Optional home phone number
`externalId`	No	Optional external system ID
`practiceId`	No	Practice ID (alternative to practiceName)
`dateOfBirth`	Yes	Date of birth (ISO 8601, e.g. 1990-01-15)
`mobilePhone`	No	Optional mobile phone number
`practiceName`	No	Practice name (auto-resolved to the account's first practice if omitted)
`referralSource`	No	Optional referral source
`primaryInsurance`	No	Optional primary insurance (created inside a default patient case)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed10 schema fields changedv0.6.0Sep 21, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / gender / description

Previous value: -"Optional gender (Male, Female, Other)"New value: +"Optional gender (Tebra GenderCode: Male, Female, Unknown)"

addedInput schema / properties / gender / enum

Added value: +[
+  "Male",
+  "Female",
+  "Unknown"
+]

changedInput schema / properties / guarantor / properties / relationship / description

Previous value: -"Optional relationship to patient"New value: +"Patient relationship to guarantor (default Other)"

addedInput schema / properties / guarantor / properties / relationship / enum
```
Added value: +[
+  "Child",
+  "Other",
+  "Self",
+  "Spouse"
+]
```

addedInput schema / properties / mrn

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional medical record number",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / practiceId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Practice ID (alternative to practiceName)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / practiceName

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Practice name (auto-resolved to the account's first practice if omitted)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / primaryInsurance / description

Previous value: -"Optional primary insurance information"New value: +"Optional primary insurance (created inside a default patient case)"

changedInput schema / properties / primaryInsurance / properties / memberId / description
```
Previous value: -"Member/subscriber ID"New value: +"Member/policy number"
```

changedInput schema / properties / ssn / description

Previous value: -"Optional SSN (will be transmitted securely)"New value: +"Optional SSN"

First observedv0.2.5Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and idempotentHint=false. The description adds a key behavioral detail: the practice is required but defaults to the account's first practice if practiceName/practiceId are omitted. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand a non-obvious default. No contradiction with annotations.

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, each purposeful. The first states the core function, the second highlights the practice requirement/default. No filler, and the most critical usage note is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 20 parameters and nested objects, and no output schema. The description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., patient ID) or any post-creation behavior. Since there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the result, which it omits. This is a notable gap for a create operation.

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 the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond grouping parameters into categories; it does not clarify edge cases or relationships that the schema misses. Baseline 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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'new patient in Tebra', and enumerates the major data categories (demographics, address, insurance, guarantor). This distinguishes it from siblings like tebra_update_patient and tebra_get_patient, which are obviously different operations.

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 is for creating new patients but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives such as tebra_update_patient or tebra_search_patients. It gives no 'when-not-to-use' guidance, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling context.

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

Deploy Server

Create Patient

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools