medicare_nca_detailRetrieve one CMS National Coverage Analysis by document ID, including request, issue, benefit category, dates, decision memo, and public-comment status when supplied by CMS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes | CMS NCA document ID. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| source_url | Yes | ||
| document_id | Yes | ||
| interpretation | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, etc. The description adds value by listing specific included fields (request, issue, benefit category, dates, decision memo, public-comment status), providing behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one parameter, an output schema (implied), and annotations covering idempotency and read-only nature, the description is complete for a retrieval tool. Lists key data components.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a description for document_id. The description repeats 'document ID' but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Retrieve one CMS National Coverage Analysis by document ID', specifying a verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like medicare_nca_search and medicare_ncd_detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a document ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclude cases. No guidance on prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The server mixes Medicare-specific tools with many unrelated general-purpose tools (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, remember), and there are multiple similar ask_pipeworx variants. This makes it difficult for an agent to distinguish which tool is appropriate for a given task without confusion.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some use a medicare_ prefix with underscores, others use generic verbs like forget, recall, or compound names like ask_pipeworx, deep_research. There is no uniform verb_noun or noun_verb structure.
57 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly focused on 'Medicare Coverage'. Many tools (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_edge_tracker, scan_dependency) are unrelated to Medicare and should be in separate servers, inflating the count and diluting focus.
The Medicare-specific tools cover a broad range: NCDs, LCDs, NCAs, enrollment, DME, Part D, hospital, outpatient, post-acute, and provider data. Minor gaps include Medicare Advantage (Part C) and Medicare Supplement, but the coverage is largely comprehensive.