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.
Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +50Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / limit / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that it returns NPI, specialty and location per match, which is useful beyond the annotations, but says nothing about result limits, partial matching, or how 'open world' coverage (all US providers) affects reliability.
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?
Three tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the searchable resource and immediately followed by the required parameter. The only minor loss is that the return-value sentence could have been merged with the input sentence.
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, the description usefully covers return fields (NPI, specialty, location), which is the main gap an agent would otherwise face. Nothing critical is missing for a read-only search, though pagination/limit behavior is left entirely to the schema.
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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only restates requiredness (last_name required; first_name, state, city optional) without adding synonyms, matching rules, or formatting guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Search individual US healthcare providers by name'), and the word 'individual' implicitly distinguishes it from npi_search_organization. However, it never names the sibling tools (npi_search_organization, npi_search_specialty, npi_lookup), so an agent must infer the routing boundary itself.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'by name' signals this is the name-based path, and the required last_name establishes the minimum input. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over npi_search_specialty or npi_lookup, nor any stated exclusions.
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.