Skip to main content
Glama
jamesrosing

tebra-mcp-server

by jamesrosing
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Update Encounter Status

tebra_update_encounter_status
Idempotent

Update an encounter's status to move it through Tebra's billing workflow: Draft, Submitted, Approved, Rejected, or Unpayable. Approving triggers billing; rejecting returns it to Draft.

Instructions

Update the status of an encounter in Tebra. Moves encounters through the billing workflow: Draft → Submitted → Approved (triggers billing) or Rejected (returns to Draft); Unpayable closes it out. Note: Tebra's UI shows Submitted encounters under 'Review'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYesNew status
practiceIdNoOptional practice ID (recommended for multi-practice accounts)
encounterIdYesTebra encounter ID
practiceNameNoOptional practice name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / practiceId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional practice ID (recommended for multi-practice accounts)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / practiceName
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional practice name",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / reviewNote
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Optional note explaining the status change",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / description
      Previous value: -"New status: Draft, Review, Approved, or Rejected"New value: +"New status"
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "Draft",
-  "Review",
-  "Approved",
-  "Rejected"
-]New value: +[
+  "Draft",
+  "Submitted",
+  "Approved",
+  "Rejected",
+  "Unpayable"
+]
  2. First observedv0.2.5

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds crucial behavioral context: Approved triggers billing, Rejected returns to Draft, Unpayable closes the encounter, and the UI displays Submitted encounters under 'Review'. This goes beyond annotations to inform the agent of side effects and a UI quirk, with no contradiction.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main action and workflow are stated upfront, followed by a useful UI note. Every clause adds value, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the valid status transitions, and their consequences. It also includes a UI nuance. All parameters are documented in the schema, and the description integrates them into the workflow. The only minor gap is not explicitly contrasting with similar update tools, but that is not critical for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter documented. The description enriches the 'status' parameter by explaining the workflow implications of each enum value, which is not in the schema. It also clarifies that practiceId/practiceName are optional and useful for multi-practice accounts, though this is already in the schema. Overall, the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Update the status of an encounter in Tebra') and immediately explains the billing workflow it drives. It goes beyond a generic 'update' by enumerating the valid state transitions and their consequences, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from other update tools like tebra_update_appointment_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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: to move encounters through the billing workflow. It explains the order (Draft → Submitted → Approved/Rejected → Unpayable) and the side effects of each transition. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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