Look up healthcare providers in the NPPES NPI registry.
Args: name: Provider individual or organization name. specialty: Taxonomy description (e.g. 'Internal Medicine'). state: 2-letter state code. limit: Max results (1-200, default 25).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| specialty | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It states a read-only lookup, which is transparent, but does not disclose details like rate limits, data freshness, or authentication requirements.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose and uses a compact, structured format (Args section). Every sentence is necessary and informative with no redundancy.
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?
For a simple lookup tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all inputs and the basic action. It could mention the return format (list of providers) but is otherwise sufficient.
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 0%, yet the description adds meaningful context: e.g., 'Provider individual or organization name', 'Taxonomy description', '2-letter state code', and 'Max results (1-200, default 25)'. This goes beyond schema titles.
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 uses a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('NPPES NPI registry'), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like mcp_search_companies or mcp_search_licenses.
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?
No explicit guidance on when or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for NPI lookups, but does not exclude other registries or mention limitations.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct public records source (company, SEC, UCC, spending, NPI, courts, licenses) with clear differentiation between search and retrieval operations. Minimal overlap and no ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'mcp_verb_noun' pattern using get, lookup, search, and verify. No mixed conventions or irregular naming.
10 tools cover a broad range of public records domains without being overwhelming. Each tool earns its place by targeting a specific source or operation.
The set covers many common public records, but mcp_get_ucc_filings is a roadmap stub returning not_implemented, which is a significant functional gap. Missing sources like property or criminal records are expected, but the non-functional tool hurts completeness.