Emergency Medicare Planner MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
Four tools have distinct purposes (coverage check, facility finding, contact retrieval, transport scheduling), but the 'sequentialthinking' tool is ambiguous—it overlaps with the analytical aspects of the other tools and lacks a clear boundary, potentially causing misselection for medical problem-solving tasks. The descriptions help differentiate the core four, but the fifth introduces confusion.
Naming Consistency2/5
Four tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_medicare_coverage, find_nearby_medical_facilities), but 'sequentialthinking' deviates significantly with a single, non-standard noun. This mixing of conventions (snake_case vs. lowercase compound) reduces predictability and readability across the tool set.
Tool Count4/5
With 5 tools, the count is reasonable for an emergency medical planning server, covering key functions like coverage, facilities, contacts, and transport. It's slightly under-scoped as it lacks tools for updating or managing data, but overall, each tool earns its place without feeling excessive or thin.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers core emergency planning aspects (coverage, facilities, contacts, transport) but has notable gaps: there are no tools for updating information (e.g., modify contacts or schedules), managing user profiles, or handling post-emergency follow-ups. The 'sequentialthinking' tool adds analytical depth but doesn't fill these operational gaps, leaving the surface incomplete for full lifecycle coverage.
Average 3.1/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Checks' coverage, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns detailed or summary information, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and understand the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of checking Medicare coverage, the lack of annotations and output schema, and the description's minimal detail, it's incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value includes (e.g., coverage details, limitations, or next steps), which is crucial for a tool with no output schema, leaving the agent uncertain about the result format.
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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (insuranceType, state, treatmentCode) with their types and purposes. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score without compensating or enhancing the schema's information.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Checks') and resource ('what treatments and procedures are covered by Medicare'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_nearby_medical_facilities' or 'get_emergency_contacts', which serve different healthcare-related functions, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools such as 'schedule_emergency_transport' or 'sequentialthinking', leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'finds' and 'match specific requirements,' implying a read-only search operation, but fails to disclose critical traits: whether it requires authentication, rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or what the output format looks like (no output schema exists). For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It wastes no words, making it appropriately concise. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring usage hints, but as-is, it's well-sized for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication or rate limits, lacks output details, and provides no usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for an AI agent to use this tool effectively is insufficient, especially for a search tool with multiple filters and no safety annotations.
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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions and enums. It mentions 'specific requirements,' hinting at parameters like 'careQuality' or 'treatmentNeeds,' but doesn't explain their semantics or relationships. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Finds hospitals and clinics nearby user location that match specific requirements.' It specifies the verb ('finds'), resource ('hospitals and clinics'), and scope ('nearby user location'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'check_medicare_coverage' or 'schedule_emergency_transport.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_emergency_contacts' might also involve medical facilities), so it's not a perfect 5.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when-not scenarios (e.g., for non-medical emergencies or when insurance coverage is the primary concern) or explicitly refer to sibling tools like 'check_medicare_coverage' for coverage checks. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context, scoring low due to the absence of clear alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any redundant or unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the retrieved information includes, how it's formatted, or any behavioral traits like permissions or limitations. For a tool with no structured support, this leaves the agent under-informed.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('location' and 'serviceType'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the parameters are used for filtering, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra value.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('emergency contact information') with a specific scope ('for a specific location'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_nearby_medical_facilities' or 'schedule_emergency_transport', which might also involve emergency services, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the sibling tools. It mentions 'specific location' but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where this tool is preferred over others, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Arranges' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this triggers actual transportation, requires authorization, has side effects, or what happens after arrangement. This is inadequate for a tool that appears to perform a critical action.
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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters documented elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that appears to perform a critical emergency action with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'arranges' means operationally, what confirmation or response to expect, or any constraints or requirements beyond the basic parameters documented in the schema.
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 has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('arranges') and resource ('emergency medical transportation'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'check_medicare_coverage' or 'find_nearby_medical_facilities' that might also relate to emergency medical services.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_emergency_contacts' or 'sequentialthinking' that might be relevant in emergency medical situations.
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 burden. It discloses key behavioral traits like adaptability ('can adjust total_thoughts'), revision capabilities ('question or revise previous medical assessments'), and iterative nature ('Repeats the process until a satisfactory diagnosis'). However, it lacks details on error handling, performance limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a tool with 9 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with purpose and usage guidelines, but becomes verbose in 'Key features' with repetitive points (e.g., multiple lines on revision and branching). Sentences like 'Generates a clinical hypothesis' and 'Verifies the hypothesis' could be condensed. Overall, it's informative but could be more streamlined.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good usage context and behavioral hints. However, for a complex tool with 9 parameters involving medical decision-making, it lacks details on output format, error cases, or security considerations, making it incomplete for full agent understanding.
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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema, such as implying 'total_thoughts' is adjustable and 'thought' represents 'clinical thinking step,' but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the tool enables 'dynamic and reflective medical problem-solving through thoughts' and 'helps analyze medical problems through a flexible thinking process.' It specifies the domain (medical) and core function (problem-solving via sequential thoughts). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_medicare_coverage' or 'find_nearby_medical_facilities,' which serve different purposes rather than overlapping in medical analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit 'When to use this tool' guidance with seven specific scenarios, such as 'Breaking down complex medical problems into steps' and 'Clinical analysis that might need course correction.' It clearly outlines appropriate contexts without mentioning alternatives, which is sufficient given the siblings are unrelated (e.g., coverage checks, facility finding).
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

emergency-medicare-planner-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

[![emergency-medicare-planner-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/manolaz/emergency-medicare-planner-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/manolaz/emergency-medicare-planner-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![emergency-medicare-planner-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/manolaz/emergency-medicare-planner-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/manolaz/emergency-medicare-planner-mcp-server)

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/manolaz/emergency-medicare-planner-mcp-server'

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