list_filing_statesWhat FilingDesk can do per state: which states it files in today with all-in pricing, which states have real name-checking, and confirmation that fee/deadline data covers all 50 states + DC. Call this before telling a user FilingDesk can file somewhere.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read-only operation, and the description adds valuable context beyond this by enumerating the specific data categories returned (state filing status, name-checking capability, fee/deadline coverage). This tells the agent what to expect from the output without needing an output schema. It does not overpromise or contradict the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence lists the content categories, and the second sentence gives a clear usage instruction. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler. It is an efficient two-sentence description that covers purpose and usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema and no parameters, the description takes on the responsibility of explaining what the tool returns. It does so by listing three specific content areas (state filing, name-checking, fee/deadline coverage), which is sufficient for a simple list tool. It could be more explicit about the response format, but the essential information is present for an agent to decide when to call it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters in the input schema, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly focuses on the tool's behavior rather than parameter details, since there are none to explain. No additional semantic guidance is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to list FilingDesk's per-state capabilities, including filing coverage, name-checking, and fee/deadline data coverage. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on state coverage rather than individual checks or comparisons. The verb is implicit in the tool name but the description fully explains what information is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs to call this tool before telling a user FilingDesk can file somewhere, providing a clear usage trigger. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools (e.g., check_llc_name, get_llc_fees) serve distinct purposes, making the context unambiguous. The 'Call this before' guidance is an explicit when-to-use directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but get_llc_fees and compare_llc_costs both return cost data, which could cause mis-selection for single-state fee queries. Similarly, check_llc_name and list_filing_states both touch on name-checking capabilities, though one actually performs a check and the other lists support.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_, compare_, get_, list_, preview_, submit_). The verbs are varied but the structure is uniform and readable.
8 tools is well-scoped for the LLC research-to-order workflow. Each tool earns its place, covering name checks, cost comparisons, fee details, deadlines, filing capabilities, and the order preview/submit flow.
The toolset covers the entire pre-sales and order placement journey: research (name, fees, costs, deadlines, options, filing states) and submission (preview, submit). Minor gap: there is no post-submission order status tool, but this may be outside the server's purpose.