Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

FMCSA Carrier Intelligence

by io.github.KMCTO
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

check_address_consistency

Read-onlyIdempotent

How many distinct business addresses and phones this carrier reports across FMCSA's independent records of it (census registration, licensing and insurance filings, and its own self-reported crash records). Mailing addresses are excluded — differing from the physical address there is normal.

Paid. Cheaper than either identity tool; one row, no graph.

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": {
      "usdot_number": "<usdot_number>"
    },
    "name": "check_address_consistency"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usdot_numberYesCarrier USDOT number (digits only), the canonical FMCSA carrier identifier.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / usdot_number / description
      Added value: +"Carrier USDOT number (digits only), the canonical FMCSA carrier identifier."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description's added value is the disclosure of which independent record sets are compared (census registration, licensing/insurance filings, self-reported crash records) and that mailing addresses are deliberately excluded to avoid false mismatches. It also flags that results are a single row with no graph structure. The main omission is whether differing addresses count as a risk signal or purely a count.

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 scope statement comes first, the exclusion second, and the cost/format note last — a sensible order with no filler. Slightly awkward line-broken phrasing and the question-form opening cost it a point, but every sentence carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, annotation-covered read tool this is nearly complete: it says what is compared, what is excluded, and that the output is one row. With no output schema, it could be more explicit about the returned fields (e.g., separate address count vs. phone count vs. per-source breakdown), which is the remaining gap.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains usdot_number as the canonical FMCSA identifier. The description adds nothing about the parameter and does not need to; baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names a concrete measurement (count of distinct business addresses and phones) over a specific set of FMCSA record sources, and explicitly excludes mailing addresses. It is clearly a distinct-count consistency check rather than an identity lookup, though the 'How many...' framing is slightly indirect versus a verb-first statement.

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?

It positions itself relative to alternatives only on cost ('Cheaper than either identity tool; one row, no graph'), which is a real routing cue but not a when-to-use rule. There are no stated conditions for choosing this over check_carrier_identity or screen_carrier_identity beyond price, and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All FMCSA Carrier Intelligence toolsInspect
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