Skip to main content
Glama

check_carrier_identity

Full identity-linkage detail for a carrier: why it's flagged and how confident that is. Priced meaningfully above the free screen_carrier_identity — call that first if you only need the flag and a count.

Never names or points at another carrier (redesigned 2026-09-18 — see schemas.IdentityAssessment's docstring): no linked USDOT number, legal name, or shared-identifier hash. A linked carrier's own identity was never this caller's to receive, and an unsalted hash of a low-entropy value like a phone number or address doesn't meaningfully withhold it from a determined party anyway (confirmed by reading Truckin's own hashing code). Every field here is either the subject carrier's own data or a derivative signal — a score, a match-term-type label (which kind of identifier matched, never the value), a count, a boolean.

SSN and EIN matches carry weight 2.0 each in FMCSA's ARCHI methodology and are not present in public data; D&B is nominally weight 2.0 too but is only genuinely available for ~4% of carriers, and officer data (needed for the name x officer term) is missing for another ~15%. So score_provenance.match_score_ceiling is computed per carrier, not a flat 4.5 — most responses cap out at 2.5 or lower. It also states plainly that recall against FMCSA's own declared-predecessor label set is not measurable. flagged applies FMCSA's own ARCHI flag rule (match_score >= 1.5 AND a linked motive >= 1); it is not a fraud determination and must not be presented as one. Note flagged and match_score >= 1.5 are NOT the same condition — clustering requires 2+ independent identifier-type families to agree, so materially more carriers clear the score threshold than are ever flagged.

Paid. A carrier with no linked carriers is a complete answer and bills; an unknown USDOT number is a free not_found.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usdot_numberYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so unusually well: it discloses billing behavior per outcome, the fact that flagged is FMCSA's ARCHI rule and not a fraud determination, that flagged != match_score >= 1.5, and that score_provenance.match_score_ceiling is computed per carrier and usually caps at 2.5. It also enumerates what the tool deliberately never returns (linked USDOT, legal name, hashes), which prevents an agent from misrepresenting output.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose and the cheaper alternative are well front-loaded, but the second and third paragraphs are long defensive digressions (why a linked carrier's identity is not the caller's to receive, confirmation from reading Truckin's hashing code) that do not help an agent select or invoke the tool. Substantive content, but several sentences do not earn their place for the invocation decision.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a subtle domain (match scoring, flags, ceilings), the description supplies the interpretive context an agent needs: what flagged means, how it differs from the score threshold, why ceilings vary per carrier, and how billing and not_found behave. Nothing essential to calling or interpreting this tool is missing.

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 integer parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds behavioral meaning about the parameter's value (an unknown USDOT number yields a free not_found) but never states the expected format, validity range, or what a USDOT number actually is, leaving the semantic gap only partly filled.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (full identity-linkage detail for a carrier) and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling screen_carrier_identity by purpose and price. An agent can tell exactly which of the two identity tools to pick without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Priced meaningfully above the free screen_carrier_identity — call that first if you only need the flag and a count.' It also gives exclusions and edge-case outcomes (a carrier with no linked carriers is a valid, billable answer; an unknown USDOT is a free not_found), which is exactly the when/when-not guidance expected.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources