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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or result format. It does implicitly signal a safe read operation, but that is the bare minimum for a lookup tool.
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?
Front-loaded with the tool's function, then a compact Args block. Efficient with no filler, though the inline parameter list is slightly more verbose than a prose form would be.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers inputs adequately but omits what a caller gets back (fields, pagination, empty-result behavior). For a read tool of this complexity, that leaves a real gap.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents all four parameters, including a taxonomy example for specialty, the 2-letter format for state, and the 1-200 range and default for limit.
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?
States a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('healthcare providers in the NPPES NPI registry'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from corporate/filing siblings like mcp_search_companies or mcp_get_sec_filing.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and parameter list.
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.