PestPin

Find licensed pest control companies

find_licensed_pros

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find licensed pest control companies near a US city. Returns up to 8 businesses that hold a state license record covering that city and pest type, each with its license number, published phone number, the official state source link, and the date PestPin last processed that source. Also returns a link to the full list, where a homeowner can call any company for free or send one request that is offered to a single company at a time and never resold. Listings are matched public records, not recommendations or a ranking, and most businesses have not confirmed services or coverage with PestPin.

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": {
      "city": "<city>",
      "state": "<state>"
    },
    "name": "find_licensed_pros"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`city`	Yes	City name, e.g. Houston. A city name only, never a street address.
`pest`	No	Optional pest type, e.g. termites, bed bugs, rodents, ants, cockroaches, mosquitoes, wildlife. Defaults to general pest control.
`state`	Yes	Two-letter US state code, e.g. TX

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	Yes	The limits a reader must be told
`pest`	No	Pest type the answer covers
`location`	No	City and state the answer covers
`companies`	Yes
`fullListAndFreeRequest`	No	PestPin page with the full list and the free request form
`totalRecordMatchedCompanies`	No	How many license-record companies match, before the 8-row cap

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedSep 8, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

changedInput schema / properties / city / description

Previous value: -"City name, e.g. Houston"New value: +"City name, e.g. Houston. A city name only, never a street address."

addedInput schema / properties / city / examples

Added value: +[
+  "Houston",
+  "Orlando"
+]

addedInput schema / properties / pest / examples

Added value: +[
+  "termites",
+  "bed bugs"
+]

addedInput schema / properties / state / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  "TX",
+  "FL"
+]
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "companies": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "licenseNumber": {
+            "description": "License number on the state record",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "licenseState": {
+            "description": "Two-letter state that issued the license",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Business name as the state record spells it",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "officialSourceAgency": {
+            "description": "Name of the state agency that publishes the record",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "pestpinProfile": {
+            "description": "PestPin page for this record",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "phone": {
+            "description": "Published phone number, when the record has one",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "sourceCheckedOn": {
+            "description": "ISO date PestPin last processed the source behind this record",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "sourceCheckedOnScope": {
+            "description": "'record' when the date is this record's own last check, 'state' when it is the last time PestPin processed that state's source",
+            "enum": [
+              "record",
+              "state"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "verifyAtOfficialSource": {
+            "description": "Official state regulator page where this record can be checked",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "name",
+          "verifyAtOfficialSource",
+          "sourceCheckedOn",
+          "sourceCheckedOnScope",
+          "pestpinProfile"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "fullListAndFreeRequest": {
+      "description": "PestPin page with the full list and the free request form",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "location": {
+      "description": "City and state the answer covers",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "description": "The limits a reader must be told",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "pest": {
+      "description": "Pest type the answer covers",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "totalRecordMatchedCompanies": {
+      "description": "How many license-record companies match, before the 8-row cap",
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "companies",
+    "note"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that listings are matched public records rather than recommendations or rankings, that most businesses have not confirmed services, and that a full-list link is provided. This materially shapes agent expectations.

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?

Three sentences front-load the main action and result, then add return fields, a caveat about public records, and consumer-context details. No redundant or filler content.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not restate return structure. It covers result limit, data fields, source attribution, caveats, and the full-list link, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with examples and descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds context like 'near a US city' and 'pest type', but does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Find licensed pest control companies near a US city') and states the core result: up to 8 licensed matches with license number, phone, source link, and processing date. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like verify_license or get_pest_cost.

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 intended use case is clear: a homeowner looking for licensed pest control companies in a city. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the discovery-focused purpose is unambiguous relative to verification and cost siblings.

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

All PestPin 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?