LicenseGround

check_compliance_risk

Perform an automated compliance and liability risk assessment for autonomous onboarding, hiring, or payments.

Args:
    state: Two-letter US state code ('CA', 'FL', or 'TX'). Required.
    entity_name: Company name or DBA to assess.
    license_number: State license number to assess.
    trade: Trade category: 'roofing', 'hvac', 'electrical', 'plumbing', 'general_contractor', or 'any'.
    require_workers_comp: If true, fails compliance if no verified workers' comp policy is active on file.
    require_surety_bond: If true, fails compliance if contractor bond is inactive or missing.
    max_disciplinary_actions: Maximum allowed board citations or disciplinary orders (default 0).
    min_confidence_score: Minimum entity name match confidence threshold (0.0 to 1.0, default 0.85).

Returns:
    JSON with 'can_hire' boolean, 'risk_level' ('LOW', 'MEDIUM', 'HIGH', 'CRITICAL'),
    'risk_score' (0.0 to 100.0), specific 'flags', and the full underlying verification result.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`state`	Yes
`trade`	No	any
`entity_name`	No
`license_number`	No
`require_surety_bond`	No
`min_confidence_score`	No
`require_workers_comp`	No
`max_disciplinary_actions`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the exact failure conditions ('fails compliance if no verified workers' comp policy is active on file', 'fails compliance if contractor bond is inactive or missing'), the default thresholds, and what the output enumeration looks like. It omits permission/auth or rate-limit behavior, keeping it below 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded, then Args and Returns are cleanly delineated with one line per parameter. No sentence is filler; each parameter line adds a distinct constraint or default.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no annotations, zero schema coverage, and a rich return payload, the description supplies all needed calling context: what each flag does, required vs default, and the shape of the risk verdict. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: it enumerates the state values ('CA', 'FL', or 'TX'), the six trade categories, and the precise effect of each boolean/numeric flag (what fails, and the default). This is far more meaning than the bare schema titles provide.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'automated compliance and liability risk assessment for autonomous onboarding, hiring, or payments.' This is a composite risk-check distinct from the sibling single-purpose tools (verify_license, check_federal_debarment, audit_osha_safety), so an agent can tell what niche it fills.

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?

It states the use context ('autonomous onboarding, hiring, or payments'), which tells the agent when this tool applies. However, it never says when NOT to use it or points to the sibling checks (verify_license, check_federal_debarment) as alternatives, so routing 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 LicenseGround 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?