Skip to main content
Glama

check_carrier_identity

Read-onlyIdempotent

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.

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_carrier_identity"
  }
}

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover safety (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive); the description adds substantial context beyond them: billing behavior, the free not_found path, what fields are deliberately absent (no linked USDOT, legal name, or identifier hash), and that flagged is an ARCHI rule not a fraud determination. It also warns that flagged and match_score >= 1.5 are not equivalent, which prevents a concrete misuse.

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 key purpose, pricing, and sibling routing are front-loaded, which is good. However, the middle paragraph drifts into justification ('confirmed by reading Truckin's own hashing code', reasoning about unsalted hashes and low-entropy values) that does not help an agent decide or call correctly, and the score-weight discussion is dense.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it enumerates the kinds of fields returned (scores, match-term-type labels, counts, booleans), explains match_score_ceiling being per-carrier, and states that recall is not measurable. For a single-parameter tool of this complexity, nothing an agent needs 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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines usdot_number as the canonical FMCSA carrier identifier. The description adds nothing further about the parameter (no format, no validity rules), so this sits at the baseline for fully-documented schemas.

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 opening sentence states a specific resource and scope: 'Full identity-linkage detail for a carrier: why it's flagged and how confident that is.' It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling screen_carrier_identity ('free ... call that first if you only need the flag and a count'), so an agent can route between the two without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('call that first if you only need the flag and a count'), a cost-based alternative (free screen vs. this paid tool), and an edge case (unknown USDOT number is a free not_found, while no-linked-carriers still bills). When-not guidance is present via the free sibling.

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.