Dated motor-carrier records with receipts, verification, and specimens, from a records custodian.
Scored across 5 tools
carrier_record and carrier_record_by_docket are clearly distinguished by their required identifier, so the two retrieval tools are not confusable. However, the generic names 'specimen' and 'coverage' are vague and could be momentarily mistaken for record-related tools, leaving minor ambiguity.
Two tools follow a consistent noun_phrase_by_identifier pattern (carrier_record, carrier_record_by_docket), but the remaining three tools are single words (coverage, specimen, verify) mixing nouns and a verb. There is no unified convention, though all names are readable.
Five tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a narrow read-only lookup service. Each tool appears to serve a distinct role (two record lookups, coverage metadata, specimen sample, and fingerprint verification) without obvious redundancy.
The server covers two primary retrieval paths by USDOT and docket number, plus coverage, specimen, and verification utilities. It lacks a discovery/search operation (e.g., list or find by carrier name), which is a minor gap for a records service but not a dead end for known-identifier lookups.
Return a carrier record for a USDOT number and as-of date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | Yes | ||
| usdot | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Return' implies a read, but there is no disclosure of auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior for unknown USDOT numbers, or what the record contains.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a tool with no annotations or output schema to lean on.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read tool this covers the essentials: the resource, the key, and the date qualifier. Without annotations or an output schema, however, the description should say more about the as_of format and what the returned record comprises.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the schema adds nothing beyond titles. The description compensates partially by mapping both parameters to meaning ('USDOT number' and 'as-of date'), but gives no format details (ISO date? numeric string?) for either.
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?
States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('carrier record') and identifies the keying parameter (USDOT number), which implicitly distinguishes it from sibling carrier_record_by_docket. The differentiation is real but only conveyed by implication rather than by naming the alternative.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus carrier_record_by_docket, verify, or coverage. No prerequisites or lookup-order advice is given, leaving the agent to infer from the params alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return a carrier record for a docket number and as-of date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | Yes | ||
| docket | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a read operation, but it does not disclose permissions, error behavior, historical snapshot semantics, rate limits, or return shape. For a lookup tool with zero annotation support, this is a significant gap.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The purpose and required inputs are presented directly.
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?
For a simple two-parameter lookup with no output schema or annotations, the description conveys the basic purpose and required inputs. However, it leaves format and behavioral details unspecified, which limits confidence for correct invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare parameter definitions. It names 'docket number' and 'as-of date', which adds minimal semantic value, but provides no format, constraints, or meaning for the as-of date beyond its name.
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 states a specific verb ('Return'), resource ('carrier record'), and the key lookup inputs ('docket number and as-of date'). It is clear but does not differentiate this tool from the sibling carrier_record tool, which appears closely related.
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?
It gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for a docket number and as-of date' identifies required inputs but does not explain the selection context or exclusions relative to siblings like carrier_record.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return the read surface coverage and limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and supplies almost none. The word 'read' weakly implies a non-mutating operation, but there is no mention of permissions, cost, rate limits, or what the returned 'coverage and limits' structure contains.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no filler, so structure is fine, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient information density. Every word earns its place only because there are so few words.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what 'coverage and limits' refers to and what form the result takes. It states neither, so an agent cannot predict the return value or confirm the tool fits its need.
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?
The schema defines zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-oriented guidance is needed or missing.
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 largely restates the tool name 'coverage' with the vague qualifier 'read surface coverage and limits'. It does not specify which resource's coverage, what a 'read surface' is, or how it differs from siblings like verify or specimen, leaving the agent to guess at the tool's actual output.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of the sibling tools (carrier_record, verify, specimen) that might overlap. The agent receives no signal about when this tool is appropriate versus the others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return one published specimen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations cover behavior, so the description carries the full burden and falls short. It does not explain what 'published' means for filtering, what happens if the specimen is unpublished or missing, or what the returned payload contains.
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?
A single short sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but here brevity comes at the cost of underspecification rather than economy of expression.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should compensate heavily but does not. Key details such as the meaning of 'published', lookup semantics, and error behavior are absent.
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?
The lone parameter 'name' has 0% schema description coverage and the description adds no meaning to it. It is unclear whether 'name' is the specimen name, a UUID, or a free-text key, leaving the agent unable to construct a correct call.
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 has a verb (Return) and a resource (one published specimen), which is clearer than a tautology. However, 'specimen' and especially the qualifier 'published' are never defined, and nothing distinguishes this tool from siblings like carrier_record or coverage.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the sibling tools. An agent must infer that this is a single-record lookup by name, with no indication of when it is preferred over carrier_record or the docket variant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Verify a Substradium fingerprint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fingerprint | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about what verification means, whether it is read-only, what permissions are required, what happens on invalid input, or what the result represents.
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 a single sentence and is front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than meaningfully concise. For a tool with behavioral and parameter ambiguity, this brevity leaves the agent without enough context to invoke it correctly.
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?
The tool is simple and has only one required parameter, but there are no annotations and no output schema. The description does not explain what a successful verification returns or how to interpret failure, so it remains incomplete for correct invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'fingerprint' parameter. It merely restates the parameter name and adds no format, source, constraint, or example value, leaving the parameter semantically undefined.
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 states a specific verb, 'Verify', and a specific resource, 'Substradium fingerprint', so the core purpose is clear. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from its siblings or clarify what domain 'Substradium' refers to.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling to choose instead. The description only identifies the operation, leaving usage entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
carrier_recordcarrier_record_by_docketcoveragespecimenverifyFMCSA motor-carrier risk scores, monitoring, and carrier-selection evidence reports for AI agents.
Dated, signed compliance-evidence packs: gov-fact-grounded claims + exclusion screens + trap-facts.
Verified U.S. logistics provider search with canonical profiles, freshness, and read-only tools.
Dated, sourced trust receipts on local businesses. Facts on the record; never approves the booking.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
