freight-intel

new_carriers

Newly-authorized US motor carriers (FMCSA new entrants), newest first — the new-carrier LEADS feed for trucking insurance agents, factoring companies, and ELD/fuel-card/equipment vendors selling to new carriers. Each row: USDOT, legal/DBA name, address, phone, EMAIL (where on file), fleet size, authority type/status, plus factoring pre-qualification (forHire, financeable, authority/insurance status) and the safety layer (out-of-service rate / inspection history where the carrier already has a roadside record; honest-null with a 'no inspection history yet' flag for true new entrants). Alias of new_authority_feed. Filter by state, fleet size, since-date, has-email, forHire, financeable, insured. Leads from public FMCSA census — verify before outreach; respect DNC / CAN-SPAM.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max carriers (default 100).
`since`	No	ISO date; only authorities on/after.
`state`	No	2-letter state, e.g. 'TX'.
`forHire`	No	Only for-hire carriers (have factorable receivables).
`insured`	No	Only carriers with BIPD insurance on file.
`hasEmail`	No	Only carriers with an email on file.
`financeable`	No	Filter by verdict: GO \| WAIT \| NO \| UNKNOWN.
`maxPowerUnits`	No
`minPowerUnits`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It extensively details output fields (USDOT, name, safety layer, etc.), notes honest null handling, and mentions data source (public FMCSA census), but omits rate limits or pagination behavior.

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 purpose, then lists output fields and filters, with no redundant sentences. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description comprehensively explains return values and their context. It covers all key aspects for a feed tool, though it lacks details on pagination and error handling.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 78%, and the description adds meaning by grouping filters (state, fleet size, since-date, hasEmail, forHire, financeable, insured) and explaining the purpose of 'financeable' as a verdict filter, exceeding what the schema provides.

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 states the tool returns a feed of newly-authorized US motor carriers, newest first, and explicitly distinguishes itself as an alias of 'new_authority_feed', setting it apart from sibling tools like carrier_lookup and search_carriers.

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 identifies the target audience (insurance agents, factoring companies, vendors) and lists available filters, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it directly to alternatives beyond the alias note.

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

All freight-intel tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but carrier_risk_lookup and safety_screen are nearly identical risk screening tools, and new_authority_feed and new_carriers are explicitly aliases, creating redundancy that could confuse an agent.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: most use snake_case but pattern varies (noun_verb, verb_noun, noun_noun), and new_authority_feed mixes camelCase. No consistent verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count5/5

9 tools is well-scoped for a freight intelligence server, covering lookup, risk, search, chameleon detection, and switch signals without being overwhelming.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core workflows: carrier lookup, risk screening, chameleon checks, new carrier leads, search, and factor switch detection. Minor gap: no direct tool for individual inspection details, but those are embedded in risk screens.

Resources

Need Help?