lookup_providerOne provider by NPI: the registry record, and what the public files have on them (Open Payments total, Medicare billing, OIG exclusion, Medicare clinician record, facility enrollments, claimed-page details) with the page section where each is. The result's url is the page to cite and to send readers to for the detail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| npi | Yes | The 10-digit National Provider Identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it lists the data categories returned (Open Payments, Medicare billing, OIG exclusion, clinician records, facility enrollments, claimed-page details) and identifies the result URL as the citation target. It does not describe not-found behavior or any access constraints.
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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by the return-content details and citation URL. The parenthetical list is long but each item identifies a distinct source section, so little is wasted.
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 multi-source lookup with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it tells the agent what sources are merged, that page sections are included, and that the URL is for citation. Missing only edge-case behavior such as no-match results.
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 100% and the npi parameter is fully described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing that lookup is by NPI, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific resource (one provider), a specific identifier (NPI), and enumerates the registry/public-file data returned. It implicitly distinguishes a single-provider lookup from sibling search tools, but does not explicitly name the alternative.
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 implied by 'One provider by NPI' and the mention of citing the result URL, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to search_providers for name/specialty searches. An agent can infer the right context but must do so itself.
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.