Skip to main content
Glama

Npi Registry

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Within a Source

search_within
Read-onlyIdempotent

Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record. Pass the text you already pulled (e.g. a SEC 10-K body, an article, a long tool result) plus a natural-language query; get back the top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores. Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt — search_within saves context, returns only the passages that matter, and every passage carries an offset so the agent can verify a verbatim quote. Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document. BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char overlapping windows; cap is 200K chars (longer inputs are truncated and flagged).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe document text to search inside (max ~200K chars).
limitNoMax passages to return (1-20, default 5).
queryYesNatural-language query — what passages do you want? E.g. "supply-chain risk", "fiscal year 2024 revenue", "drug interactions with warfarin".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details: uses BGE-base-en embeddings with cosine similarity over 500-char overlapping windows, a 200K char cap with truncation flag, and every passage includes character offsets for verification. This goes well beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (under 100 words), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff. It efficiently conveys the mechanism, limits, and usage guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the rich annotations and schema, the description is fully adequate. It explains the embedding/chunking details, the document size cap, and the return format (passages with offsets and scores), even though there is no output schema. It also clarifies integration with ask_pipeworx_grounded.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds examples for the query parameter, notes the cap for text, and explains the limit meaning. This adds marginal value beyond the schema, justifying a slight upgrade from baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool does semantic search inside a fetched record, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like search and ask_pipeworx_grounded by explaining its use case (searching inside a retrieved document) and pairing with the latter.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool: when a record is too large to fit in the prompt, saving context. It also mentions pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative scenarios, slightly reducing the score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Npi Registry toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tools are generally distinct, with clear purposes for NPI registry operations, but some overlap exists between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, which all route to the same underlying data but with different response modes. Additionally, bet_research and polymarket_edges both offer analysis of prediction markets, causing potential confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is mixed: some tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., search, remember, forget), while others use descriptive but non-pattern names like ai_visibility_check or ask_pipeworx_grounded. There is also a mix of snake_case and camelCase (e.g., generate_llms_txt vs. ai_visibility_check).

Tool Count4/5

With 33 tools, the count is slightly high but still reasonable given the broad scope of the server, which covers NPI registry, company profiles, prediction markets, AI visibility, and more. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, though a few could potentially be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers the NPI registry core (search, get by NPI) but lacks obvious CRUD operations like create, update, or delete for providers. For other domains like company profiles, it has good coverage, but the NPI-specific functionality feels incomplete without lifecycle management.

Resources