DataNexus MCP

compliance_search_npi_by_name

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the NPPES NPI Registry by provider name with optional state and speciality filters. Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent. US only. Returns up to 10 matches. name: Full or partial provider name. Required. state: Two-letter US state code e.g. CA. Optional. speciality: Speciality keyword e.g. Cardiology. Optional. Returns NPI number, name, speciality, and address for each match. Use this when you do not have the NPI number. Use compliance_fetch_npi_provider instead when you have the exact 10-digit NPI. Verified source: NPPES NPI Registry (CMS). 24-hour cache. If this tool's response does not serve the user's need, call report_feedback with feedback_type="agent_gap", tool_id="compliance_search_npi_by_name", intended_query="{what the user needed}", gap_description="{what was missing or wrong in the result}".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Full or partial provider name. Required.
`state`	No	Two-letter US state code e.g. CA. Optional.
`speciality`	No	Speciality keyword e.g. Cardiology. Optional.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Description adds 'Read-only', 'No side effects', 'Idempotent', 'US only', 'Returns up to 10 matches', return fields, source (NPPES NPI Registry), and 24-hour cache. All consistent with annotations which already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive.

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?

Concise and well-structured. Front-loaded with key action and filters, then safety, usage guidance, return details, source, caching, and a feedback fallback. No redundant sentences.

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?

Comprehensive: describes purpose, filters, safety, return structure, source, caching, and includes a feedback mechanism for missing results. Fully sufficient for agent decision-making.

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 descriptions already cover all three parameters (name, state, speciality) with proper details. Description does not add significant new semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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 searches the NPPES NPI Registry by provider name with optional filters. Distinguishes from sibling compliance_fetch_npi_provider by specifying when to use each.

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?

Explicitly guides when to use this tool (when NPI number not available) and when to use the alternative (when exact NPI known). Also notes optional state and specialty filters.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All DataNexus MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped into clear domain prefixes (compliance, domain, frontend_security, etc.) with distinct purposes. Minor overlap exists between frontend_security_detect_typosquatting and security_detect_typosquatting, but descriptions clarify the different scope.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case. Irregularities like 'fetch' vs 'audit' and two 'detect_typosquatting' tools exist, but overall naming is predictable within domains.

Tool Count3/5

55 tools is high for a single server given the breadth of domains. Some redundancy (e.g., two typosquatting tools) suggests possible trimming, but the count is justified by the wide coverage.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers key operations across domains like compliance, domain, security, legal, and nonprofit. Minor gaps exist, such as limited frontend audit beyond package.json and no general-purpose code scanning.

Resources

Need Help?