DouxProcess Directory

Is it licensed, bonded and insured

verify_business

Read-onlyIdempotent

Is this business licensed, bonded and insured today, from the government record. Give a listing slug, a license number, or a business name with its two-letter state. Returns licensed, bonded and insured as true, false or null (the record does not say), each with its source, checked_at day and record_url, the board's open gaps, and the listing URL. For CSLB contractors insured means workers' comp. Report the facts and link the record; do not judge the business. Not for decisions about a person's credit, employment, insurance or housing.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "verify_business"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	The business name (with state).
`slug`	No	A listing slug or link from find_businesses.
`state`	No	Two-letter US state, required with name.
`issuer`	No	The issuer code with a license number, e.g. CA-CSLB.
`license`	No	A license number, e.g. CSLB 1050000.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`note`	No
`slug`	No
`facts`	No
`found`	Yes
`place`	No
`bonded`	Yes
`source`	No
`insured`	Yes
`license`	No
`listing`	No
`licensed`	Yes
`open_gaps`	No
`red_flags`	No
`disclosure`	No
`record_url`	No
`how_checked`	No
`other_matches`	No
`secondary_status`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 26, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / red_flags

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "checked_at": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "detail": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "ended": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "kind": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "since": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "source": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "kind",
+      "source",
+      "detail"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

AddedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: tri-state true/false/null results where null means 'the record does not say,' plus the CSLB-specific note that insured means workers' comp. The framing restriction against judging the business is useful behavioral guidance not present in annotations.

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?

Purpose, accepted inputs, return shape, and use restriction land in that order with no filler sentences. The return-value sentence is long and enumerates fields that an output schema already carries, which is the only real slack.

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 a zero-required-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: which input combinations work, what the three-state answer means, what accompanies each flag, and the boundary on how the result may be used.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds the key constraint the schema cannot express: the parameters are alternatives, not a bag — pick a slug, OR a license number, OR a name with its state. That clarifies how to satisfy a tool with zero required parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific, checkable question — whether a business is licensed, bonded and insured from the government record — which is a clear verb+resource statement rather than a restatement of the title. It never names the closest sibling (verify_license), so an agent must infer that the business-level rollup differs from a single-license check.

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?

Explicitly enumerates the three accepted call shapes (slug, license number, or name + two-letter state) and adds hard exclusions: 'Report the facts and link the record; do not judge the business' and 'Not for decisions about a person's credit, employment, insurance or housing.' It does not route to an alternative tool when the input is a person or a bare license, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

All DouxProcess Directory 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?