Better Vetters Contractor Check

check_contractor

Look up a US contractor in official public licence, permit, and discipline records and return a match confidence and 0-100 trust score. Requires Authorization: Bearer . Billed per successful in-coverage check at the current per-check price.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "check_contractor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`city`	No
`name`	Yes
`phone`	No
`state`	No
`website`	No
`license_number`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it states the Bearer token auth requirement, the billing model ('per successful in-coverage check'), and the shape of the result. It leaves gaps on what happens for out-of-coverage lookups (no charge? an error?) and on rate limits or latency, which is why this is not a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose before auth and billing details; every sentence carries information. The closing phrase 'at the current per-check price' is slightly vague but signals a cost that matters to the caller.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values, and it appropriately covers auth and billing. However, for a six-parameter lookup tool with zero schema description coverage, the absence of any guidance on parameter roles or matching strategy leaves a real gap in what an agent needs to call it well.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. It never explains that name is the only required field, nor how the optional city, state, phone, website, and license_number fields are used to disambiguate a match or improve confidence — information an agent would need to supply good inputs.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Look up a US contractor') and scopes the data sources to official public licence, permit, and discipline records. It also states what comes back (match confidence and a 0-100 trust score), so an agent knows exactly what this call produces. It does not differentiate from the sibling get_coverage, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing advice relative to get_coverage. The only usage-relevant statements are operational prerequisites (API key, per-check billing), which tell the agent how to call it but not when to prefer it over alternatives.

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

All Better Vetters Contractor Check 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?