medicover-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action (booking, listing, searching, rescheduling) on different entities (appointments, patients, filters). There is no ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow the consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., book_appointment, list_patients, search_slots). No mixing of styles or unconventional names.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for an appointment booking domain. Each tool has a clear role, and the count is neither too thin nor too heavy.
Completeness4/5
The set covers the main lifecycle: search, filter, book, list, and reschedule. However, a cancellation tool is missing, which is a minor gap for a complete appointment management workflow.
Average 4.4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 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
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Declares read-only nature and default date filter, which are key behavioral traits. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it does well for a simple list tool but lacks details on authentication or rate limits.
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?
Three succinct sentences covering purpose, output details, and read-only status. No filler or redundancy.
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 output schema exists and complexity is low, description provides necessary context: default upcoming, opaque id, read-only. Lacks pagination/ordering details but still adequate.
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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema (e.g., 'upcoming' maps to default state). No significant new information for 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?
Clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'appointments' with patient scope and default upcoming behavior. Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on patient's existing appointments and mentioning how appointment_id is used with reschedule_appointment.
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?
Implies usage for viewing appointments but does not explicitly state when to use this vs book_appointment or search_slots. No exclusion criteria or alternative guidance provided.
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 correctly notes 'Read-only.', which is the key behavioral trait. It does not mention side effects, which are expected to be none for a list operation. 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 sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage advice and read-only note. Every word earns its place; no fluff.
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 5 parameters, full schema descriptions, and presence of an output schema, the description covers core purpose, sequencing, and safety. It does not detail return format, but that is handled by the output 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only referencing 'region + specialty selection'. It does not provide deeper semantics for each parameter.
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 explicitly states the tool lists clinics, doctors, and languages bookable for a region and specialty selection, using specific verb 'List' and clear resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_slots' by noting it should be used before that.
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 clear usage context: 'Use this after picking a region and specialty to enumerate valid clinic and doctor IDs before calling search_slots.' It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is strong.
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 that the tool is 'Read-only', that booking_string is single-use and can expire, that end_date is ignored server-side (dropped client-side), and that next_search_date hints pagination. This provides sufficient behavioral insight beyond the schema.
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 paragraph with no redundant sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with necessary details. Every sentence adds value and 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?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers key aspects: main function, optional filters, pagination hint, expiration, and client-side filtering limitations. It does not explain output schema details (which is acceptable) or error handling, but is complete enough for typical use.
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 the description adds value beyond schema descriptions: it explains the purpose of booking_string (carried in each slot), the need for client-side filtering of visit_type, and the expiration hint. This additional context helps the agent understand how to use parameters effectively.
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 'Find' and the resource 'available appointment slots', with optional filters. It distinguishes from siblings like book_appointment (which uses the booking_string) and list_appointments (which lists existing appointments). The explanation of booking_string and visit_type further clarifies the tool's role.
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?
Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Re-run this immediately before booking, because a booking_string can expire.' It also advises on filtering visit_type client-side for in-person visits. Although it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the context implies it for finding slots before booking. Alternatives like list_search_filters are mentioned for resolving language IDs.
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 the full burden. It states 'Read-only' and describes the output (each as {id, name}), adding value beyond the schema. However, it doesn't disclose potential errors or permission requirements, so a slight deduction is warranted.
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 concise, with three sentences that front-load the core purpose, then detail the output and usage. 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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description fully covers purpose, usage, and relation to siblings. It is complete without needing to describe return values since an output schema is present.
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 already covers the single parameter (patient_id) with a description ('MRN; defaults to the account holder'), resulting in 100% coverage. The description adds context about the patient's own visit history but does not enhance parameter 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 clearly states the tool resolves names to IDs from a patient's visit history, explicitly listing the returned resource types (specialties, doctors, clinics, regions) and their format. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool list_search_filters by noting that the latter is used for further narrowing.
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 usage guidance: use this tool to discover opaque IDs needed by search_slots, then narrow further with list_search_filters. It also indicates the tool is read-only, helping the agent decide when to invoke it.
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?
Without annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: it returns account holder and linked dependents, provides stable `patient_id` (MRN), and marks the logged-in user with `is_account_holder`. This goes beyond the empty input schema, though it could mention potential pagination or limits.
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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second adds behavioral details and usage guidance. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 the tool has no annotations, no parameters, and an output schema (assumed adequate), the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does, what the output contains, and how to use the results. No gaps remain.
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?
With no parameters, the schema coverage is 100% and the description adds meaning by explaining that no arguments are needed and that the tool lists all patients under the account. The description clarifies the implicit scope, justifying a score above 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 specifies the action ('list'), resource ('patients'), and scope ('every patient the logged-in account can act on'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools focused on appointments and filters by explicitly stating it returns patients available for the account, which is a unique 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 provides clear guidance on using the output: 'Use these IDs — never names — for the patient-scoped tools.' This tells the agent how to apply the results. While no explicit 'when not to use' is stated, the lack of alternative patient-listing tools makes this sufficient.
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?
Discloses atomicity, the earlier-only safety check, and portal re-validation. Lacks details on failure modes, but covers key behaviors without 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 and one paragraph, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.
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?
Output schema exists but not shown, so return values not needed. Description and schema together fully explain behavior and parameters for a 5-param tool.
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 baseline 3. The description adds context for `require_earlier` and `new_slot_date`, explaining their roles in the safety check and reporting.
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?
Clearly states 'Move an existing appointment to a different slot' with the atomicity qualifier. Distinguishes from siblings like 'book_appointment' and 'search_slots' by specifying rescheduling.
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?
Provides guidance on using `require_earlier` for unattended routines, implying a use case. Does not explicitly compare with siblings, but the context makes it clear.
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?
No annotations provided, so the description fully covers behavior: read-before-write validation, error handling if slot is gone, return of appointment id, and the uncertainty of reporting_id. Comprehensive for a mutation tool.
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?
Well-structured with clear sections for purpose, parameter details, and behavior. A bit verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning.
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 output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description provides necessary operational details: slot validation, error behavior, and a practical note on reporting_id. Covers all essential aspects 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.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds significant value: explains why patient_id is required, and gives practical caveat about reporting_id (unverified requirement, leave empty). Goes beyond schema 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?
Clearly states the tool books an available slot for a specific patient, with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like reschedule_appointment and search_slots by the unique action of booking.
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?
Provides clear context: patient_id is mandatory, slot validation occurs at booking time, and a caveat about reporting_id. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/mattijskersten/medimcp'

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