Skip to main content
Glama
jamesrosing

tebra-mcp-server

by jamesrosing
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Providers

tebra_get_providers
Read-only

Retrieve provider details including ID, name, specialty, NPI, and status. Filter by name, practice, department, or type to map providers to IDs for scheduling and encounters.

Instructions

Get providers with IDs, names, specialties, NPI, and active status. Optionally filter by full name, practice, department, or provider type. Used to resolve provider names to IDs for appointments and encounters.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoOptional provider type filter
fullNameNoOptional provider full name filter
practiceIdNoOptional practice ID filter
practiceNameNoOptional practice name filter
departmentNameNoOptional department name filter

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / departmentName
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional department name filter",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / fullName
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional provider full name filter",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / practiceId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional practice ID filter",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / type
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional provider type filter",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.2.5

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and non-exhaustive nature of the result set. The description adds context about returned fields and filter options, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, whether results are limited, or how filters match (exact vs partial). Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not extensive.

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 filler: the first states the core operation and output, the second covers the filters and use case. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 read-only lookup tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the key facts: what is returned, what filters exist, and why to use it. It could be more complete by explicitly stating the response shape (e.g., list vs single object), but the 'Get providers with...' phrasing and readOnlyHint make the expectation reasonably clear.

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 all five optional parameters are already documented with their names and filters. The description restates the filter capabilities ('full name, practice, department, or provider type') but adds no detail beyond the schema about matching semantics or value formats. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the load.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Get providers' — and enumerates the returned fields: IDs, names, specialties, NPI, and active status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like tebra_get_practices or tebra_get_service_locations by naming the exact resource and its purpose.

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 gives a clear usage context: 'Used to resolve provider names to IDs for appointments and encounters.' This tells an agent when to reach for this tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like tebra_get_practices.

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