Search individual US healthcare providers by name. Requires a last_name (first_name, state, city optional). Returns NPI, specialty, location for each match.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | City to narrow results (optional). | |
| limit | No | Max results (1-50, default 10). | |
| state | No | Two-letter state code to narrow results (optional). | |
| last_name | Yes | Provider last name (required). | |
| first_name | No | Provider first name (optional). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds a return contract ('Returns NPI, specialty, location for each match') and the required-input constraint, both useful beyond the schema. It doesn't detail empty-result behavior, but that is minor given 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?
Two focused sentences convey the action, scope, required input, optional refinements, and return contents with no filler. Critical information is front-loaded.
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 read-only tool, the description covers the search scope, required parameter, and return content; the schema covers limit/city/state formats. It could be more explicit about when to use sibling NPI tools, but nothing essential is missing.
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 100%, so the schema already explains all five parameters. The description only restates the required/optional nature already visible in the schema, adding no new parameter-level semantics.
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?
Description opens with a specific verb ('Search'), a precise resource ('individual US healthcare providers'), and the lookup method ('by name'). This sets it apart from siblings like npi_search_organization and npi_lookup, which handle different resources or lookup styles.
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 states the exact use case: locate individual providers when you have a last name, with optional narrowing by first name/state/city. It gives clear context but does not explicitly list exclusions or point to alternative tools such as npi_search_organization for organizations.
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.