Skip to main content
Glama

Tolca: Québec contractor check

by ca.tonbot.tolca
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Québec contractor check

qc_contractor_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a Québec construction contractor against four official public data sources in one call: active RBQ licence (status, restrictions, bond, authorized work categories), RENA (businesses barred from public contracts and public subcontracts), environmental administrative penalties (MELCCFP) and public contracts awarded on SEAO (count, total amount, main public buyers, last 12 months). Returns a verdict ok / review / blocking / not_found with reasons, sources and extraction dates. Use when the user asks whether a Québec contractor, subcontractor or renovation company is licensed, trustworthy or eligible for public contracts. Provide neq, licence or name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
neqNoQuébec enterprise number (NEQ), 10 digits
langNoAnswer language, default fr
nameNoBusiness name, exact or partial
licenceNoRBQ licence number, e.g. 8315-8105-31

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rbqYesRBQ licence record: licence, neq, name, status, restriction, bond, municipality, subcategory_labels, candidates
renaYesMatching RENA entries (public-contract ban)
queryYesWhat was searched and how it matched
noticeNo
reasonsYesPlain-language reasons for the verdict
sourcesYesOfficial sources with extraction dates
verdictYesok = active licence, no RENA, no penalty; review = something to look at; blocking = RENA listing or no active licence; not_found = no match
verdict_labelYes
public_contractsNoPublic contracts awarded on SEAO in the last 12 months: contracts, total_cad, first_award, last_award, buyers, by_category, recent (up to 5), matched_by
environmental_penaltiesYesMatching environmental administrative penalties

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / public_contracts
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "description": "Public contracts awarded on SEAO in the last 12 months: contracts, total_cad, first_award, last_award, buyers, by_category, recent (up to 5), matched_by",
+  "propertyNames": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by naming the four sources queried, the 12-month contract window, and that extraction dates accompany the verdict. It does not mention latency, rate limits, or what happens when no source matches.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the key facts (sources first, then when-to-use and inputs). The first sentence is clause-dense, but no sentence is wasted or redundant.

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, so return-value detail is not needed, and the description still summarizes the verdict model. Sources, trigger conditions, identifier options and freshness are all covered, which is complete for an agent deciding whether and how to call this multi-source lookup.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a disjunction not expressed in the schema (zero required params): the caller must supply neq, licence or name. It does not explain acceptable name-matching fuzziness or the effect of lang, though the schema documents both.

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 (check) plus resource (Québec construction contractor) and enumerates the four data sources and their scope. It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling qc_licence by covering RBQ licence plus RENA, MELCCFP penalties and SEAO contracts in one call, and names the verdict values returned.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use when the user asks whether a Québec contractor, subcontractor or renovation company is licensed, trustworthy or eligible for public contracts') and tells the agent which identifier to supply. It does not state when to prefer the sibling qc_licence over this broader check, so the alternative-route guidance is incomplete.

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

All Tolca: Québec contractor check toolsInspect
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