On the Register

providers_search

Find UK providers that offer a treatment and are on the CQC/GPhC register. Filter by treatment (glp1-weight-loss, hormone-therapy, iv-therapy, vitamin-injections), kind (online/clinic/mobile), nation, town slug, a name search, or near a postcode. Sort by distance, CQC rating, Google rating or review count. Returns listings with registration wording, the Google rating and the provider's own consultation fee where published. Lists, never ranks by price or recommends.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "treatment": "<treatment>"
    },
    "name": "providers_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Text to match in the provider name
`kind`	No
`near`	No	A UK postcode or outcode to search near; returns nearest first
`sort`	No	Order: distance (needs `near`), cqc_rating, google_rating, or reviews (Google count). Default: distance with `near`, else cqc_rating.
`limit`	No
`nation`	No
`radius_km`	No	Search radius for `near`, in km
`town_slug`	No
`treatment`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does a fair job: it discloses the source registers (CQC/GPhC), that results include registration wording, Google rating and the provider's own consultation fee where published, and explicitly limits the tool to listing rather than ranking/recommending. It omits pagination behaviour, default result counts, and any rate/permission considerations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then filters/sorting, then output and scope limits. The parenthetical enum list and the sort enumeration repeat schema values, which is slightly redundant but aids scanability rather than obscuring anything.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 9-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, source register, filterable dimensions, sort options, returned fields and a scope disclaimer. Remaining gaps are minor (defaults, result limits, proximity radius) but non-trivial for an agent tuning a query.

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 only 44%, so the description must compensate, and it does for most meaningful parameters: it names the treatment values, the kind values, the name search, town slug, postcode proximity, and the four sort modes. It adds little beyond the schema descriptions for `q`, `sort` and `near`, and does not explain `radius_km` or `limit`, leaving some gaps at low coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find UK providers that offer a treatment' scoped to 'CQC/GPhC register'. It also states what the result is (a listing) and a negative scope ('never ranks by price or recommends'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings providers_get and providers_check, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied through the enumerated filters and sort modes, and the closing clause rules out ranking/recommendation use. But there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus providers_get or providers_check, nor any statement of prerequisites or when-not conditions.

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

All On the Register tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?