Skip to main content
Glama

Business Verify API

Server Details

Verify a US business exists and is active by name + state. Status, formation date, agent.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

TDQS

Score is being calculated.

Available Tools

1 tool
business_verifyAInspect

Verify a US business entity exists and is active in the specified state registry. Returns found status, active/inactive status, formation date, registered agent, entity type, and source URL.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesCompany name to look up (e.g. 'Apple Inc')
stateYesTwo-letter US state code (e.g. 'CA')

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return fields (found status, active/inactive status, formation date, registered agent, entity type, source URL), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, rate limits, data freshness, or what happens when the entity is not found (e.g., does it return a 'not found' status or throw an error?). The description is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the return fields. It is concise and every part earns its place. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the purpose from the return fields), but it is efficient and clear.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, no siblings), and the description covers the core purpose and return fields. However, without annotations or an output schema, the description could be more complete by explaining the meaning of 'found status' and 'active/inactive status' (e.g., what values are possible) and any edge cases. It is adequate for a simple lookup tool but leaves some behavioral details unspecified.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (name and state) with examples and constraints. The description adds context by mentioning 'US business entity' and 'state registry', which reinforces the meaning of the state parameter, but it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: verifying a US business entity exists and is active in a state registry. It specifies the resource (US business entity, state registry) and the action (verify), and lists the key return fields, making it easy for an agent to understand what this tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool is for verification lookups in a state registry, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations (e.g., only for US businesses, only for state registries, not for federal or other databases). With no sibling tools, the lack of explicit alternatives is less critical, but the description could still clarify the intended use case more directly.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedbusiness_verify

Frequently Asked Questions

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables AI agents to verify and search business entities across US state and international company registries, providing real-time confirmation of legal existence, status, and filings.
    9
    MIT
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Search and verify U.S. business entities from official state filings. Covers NY, FL, and CO - search by name, get full entity details, pull new formations, and check usage. Requires a FreshFilings API key from freshfilings.dev.
    4
    MIT
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Real-time contractor license verification across 45 US states. Verifies license status, expiration, and disciplinary history directly against state licensing board portals.
    4
    61
    MIT
Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources