Skip to main content
Glama
malonestar

gov-data-mcp

by malonestar

license-verifier

Verify US professional licenses against official state records to uncover disciplinary actions, NPI matches, and OIG exclusions. Handles single lookups and bulk roster screening.

Instructions

License Verification API — Nurses, MDs & OIG Exclusions. Primary source verification for US professional licenses. Search 19 state boards by name or license number: status, expiration, disciplinary actions. Cross-checks the NPPES NPI registry and screens the HHS-OIG exclusion list. Bulk roster screening. Reads live from the official government source. Store page: https://apify.com/malonestar/license-verifier

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityNoCity to filter licensees by. Not every board publishes a city column.
nameNoFull-name search that works across every board (handles combined name fields). Use this if lastName/firstName return nothing.
rosterNoBatch mode: verify a whole roster of professionals in one run. Each item: {firstName, lastName, state (optional — omit to search every board), profession (optional), middleName (optional, improves scoring)}. Emits one verdict row per entry with verdict, match_score, match_tier, NPI cross-walk, OIG exclusion screen and board-action status. Capped at 200 entries per run. Every verdict row is billable, including NOT_FOUND and INCONCLUSIVE_SOURCE_ERROR — a verified negative is the deliverable.
statesNoState codes or explicit board IDs. A bare state code searches EVERY board in that state - e.g. "TX" covers TDLR trades AND the Board of Nursing (RN, LVN, APRN). Use a hyphenated ID to target ONE board: IL-IDFPR, CT-DCP, CO-DORA, TX-TDLR, TX-BON (RN), TX-LVN, TX-APRN, OR-CCB, OR-BCD, NY-RACING (horse racing only), NY-RE, NY-COS, NY-NOTARY, NY-APPRAISER, WA-DOH (health professions), WA-CPA, WA-CONTRACTOR, DE-DPR, VT-DFS. States: CO, CT, DE, IL, NY, OR, TX, VT, WA. Example: ["WA"].
lastNameNoLicensee last name (partial match). Example: "Threlkeld". Applied by default if omitted: "".
firstNameNoLicensee first name (partial match). Supplying it raises match confidence sharply — first + last name exact is the threshold for a confident verdict. Example: "Judson". Applied by default if omitted: "".
npiLookupNoFor each roster entry, look the person up in the federal NPI registry and use their self-reported state license number to pin down the exact board record. This is what turns 125 same-name candidates into one verified match, and it returns NPI, taxonomy and practice address. Applied by default if omitted: true.
maxResultsNoMaximum number of license records to return per board. Each returned row is billable, so start small. Example: 10. Applied by default if omitted: 200.
statusOnlyNoReturn only license number, type, status, expiration, provenance and the OIG exclusion flags. Handy for recurring renewal monitoring. NOTE: this is the SAME price per row as a full record — it returns less data, not cheaper data. Applied by default if omitted: false.
licenseTypeNoe.g. "Registered Nurse", "Real Estate", "Cosmetology", "Professional Engineer". Boards without a license-type column skip this filter and say so in the log and in unsupported_filters.
businessNameNoBusiness or DBA name to search (partial match).
licenseNumberNoExact license number to verify. The most precise search available — use it when you have it.
checkDisciplineNoJoin the best-matching licensee against secondary board-action datasets: Delaware DPR disciplinary actions and the NYS Office of Professional Medical Conduct. A failed lookup is reported as unknown, never as 'no action on file'. Applied by default if omitted: true.
onlyDisciplinedNoReturn only licensees with a disciplinary history. Honoured by IL-IDFPR, CO-DORA, DE-DPR, WA-DOH, TX-BON and TX-LVN. Target those board IDs directly rather than a bare state code, or sibling boards that publish no disciplinary column will also return rows (they are reported in unsupported_filters). Applied by default if omitted: false.
socrataAppTokenNoOptional free Socrata app token to raise rate limits.
screenExclusionsNoCheck every result against the federal HHS-OIG List of Excluded Individuals/Entities (83,000+ records, refreshed monthly). Matched on NPI first, then last+first+state. A surname-only hit is NEVER reported as an exclusion — it is flagged for review instead. Adds no per-row cost. Applied by default if omitted: true.
rosterLimitPerBoardNoHow many candidate records to pull per board for each roster entry before scoring. Higher values reduce the chance of missing the right person for a common surname; candidates_truncated tells you when the cap was hit. Applied by default if omitted: 100.
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: reads live from official government sources, every returned row is billable (including negatives), roster capped at 200 entries, OIG surname-only hits are flagged for review rather than reported, and rate limits can be raised via a Socrata token. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or error handling, but the described behaviors add substantial transparency beyond schema.

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?

The description is a single paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose and then briefly highlights additional features. It is concise and avoids redundancy, though the store page link is arguably unnecessary for an API description. The structure is efficient and scannable, with the main verb and resource stated upfront.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description gives a solid overview of capabilities (search, bulk screening, discipline checks, OIG screening) and limitations (billing, roster cap). However, it does not explicitly describe the output format for non-roster searches (only mentions verdict fields within the roster parameter). Since there is no output schema, more detail on return structure would improve completeness, but for a 17-parameter tool it covers the core functionality adequately.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema provides 100% coverage with highly detailed descriptions for all 17 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already specifies. While it mentions billing implications and roster caps, these are also covered in the schema descriptions. Thus, the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a License Verification API for US professional licenses, specifying target professions (Nurses, MDs), sources (19 state boards, NPPES, HHS-OIG), and core actions (search by name/license number, verify status/expiration/disciplinary actions, bulk roster screening). This distinguishes it sharply from sibling tools focused on unrelated domains like FDIC or wetlands.

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 provides clear context: it is for verifying US professional licenses, screening OIG exclusions, and bulk roster checks. It does not list explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools are all in different domains (environmental, financial, etc.), making the appropriate use case obvious. Lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the context is sufficient.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/malonestar/gov-data-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server