Limitguard Lead Verification

get_trust_score

Read-only

Look up your own most recent trust score for an entity you checked before, from your stored checks: score, level, when, which product, trend and how many checks are on record. Runs no new check and calls no data source. Free ($0).

    Returns status "found" with trust_score, trust_level, checked_at,
    source_product, trend and checks_on_record, or status "not_found" with a
    next_step. Only checks made with your key (via check_entity, or REST
    entity/KYB checks) are read; another key's or workspace's never are (#946).
    Signed in with OAuth, your workspace's checks are read instead (#1062).

    Args:
        entity_id: The entity name, as you sent it to check_entity

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entity_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/destructive annotations: it discloses cost ($0), that no data source is called, that only checks made with your key are readable, that another key's or workspace's checks never are, and that OAuth sessions read workspace checks instead. It also enumerates the two possible status outcomes.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the key behavioral distinction before any detail, then structured into return values, scoping rules and args. The issue references (#946, #1062) are terse and the prose has no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still names the returned fields and the found/not_found statuses, and it covers the authorization scoping an agent would otherwise have to discover by failure. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single parameter, and it does: entity_id is 'The entity name, as you sent it to check_entity', clarifying that it is the exact name string previously submitted rather than an internal identifier. It does not restate the type, but that is in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('look up your most recent trust score') and pins the scope precisely: it reads a previously stored check rather than performing one. The clause 'from your stored checks' plus the explicit 'Runs no new check and calls no data source' cleanly separates it from check_entity and the other check/verify siblings.

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?

Gives a clear condition for use ('an entity you checked before') and an implicit but well-signposted alternative via 'Runs no new check' and 'as you sent it to check_entity'. It does not spell out a when-not rule such as 'use check_entity if you need a fresh score', so it falls just short of explicit routing.

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

All Limitguard Lead Verification 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.