Loa Healthcare Pricing

Provider Search

search_providers

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search public CMS NPI Registry data for clinicians and healthcare organizations by specialty, name, or location. Use returned provenance to understand the registry source and scope. Use this for provider lookup, not pricing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Provider name to search for (e.g. "John Smith")
`limit`	No	Max results (default 20)
`location`	No	Location to search in
`specialty`	No	Medical specialty (e.g. "Cardiology", "Family Medicine")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`total`	Yes
`providers`	Yes
`provenance`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 24, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / providers / items / properties / loa_link

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "Tracked Loa link. Share it when the user wants to book, contact, or learn more about this provider or hospital.",
+      "properties": {
+        "action": {
+          "enum": [
+            "book",
+            "website",
+            "profile"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "label": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "url": {
+          "format": "uri",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "url",
+        "action",
+        "label"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ]
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / providers / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "npi",
-  "name",
-  "specialty",
-  "address",
-  "city",
-  "state",
-  "zip_code",
-  "phone"
-]New value: +[
+  "npi",
+  "name",
+  "specialty",
+  "address",
+  "city",
+  "state",
+  "zip_code",
+  "phone",
+  "loa_link"
+]

First observedJul 27, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the public CMS NPI Registry source and instructs agents to use returned provenance, but it does not disclose operational details like rate limits or pagination behavior.

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 three short, purposeful sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the provenance note and usage boundary efficiently.

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 lookup tool with rich schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, data source, and usage boundary. It could be slightly more complete by naming sibling alternatives, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions specialty, name, and location in prose but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the input 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Search public CMS NPI Registry data for clinicians and healthcare organizations by specialty, name, or location.' It is clearly distinct from pricing-related siblings and identifies the exact search dimensions, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for provider lookup, not pricing,' giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. However, it does not name a specific alternative tool for pricing or for other search types like search_entities or search_hospitals.

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

All Loa Healthcare Pricing tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.