FMCSA Carrier Intelligence

confirm_identity_link

Read-onlyIdempotent

Confirms or denies that two carriers YOU ALREADY SUSPECT are linked in fact share an identity cluster — the lower-risk alternative to check_carrier_identity's removed linked_carriers field (see schemas.IdentityAssessment's docstring for why that was removed 2026-09-18).

This never discloses a carrier's identity to a caller who didn't already have it: both usdot_number_a and usdot_number_b are supplied by you. It only ever answers "do these two specific carriers share a cluster?", never "who is linked to this carrier?" — call check_carrier_identity for that, which stops at a score and a count for exactly this reason. cluster_id is returned only when linked is true, and isn't new information even then — you could obtain the same value directly from either carrier's own check_carrier_identity or screen_carrier_identity response.

usdot_number_a and usdot_number_b must differ (invalid_arguments, free — there is no comparison to make). Either number failing to resolve in carrier_identity_cluster is a free not_found, same as check_carrier_identity.

Paid — pricier than check_carrier_identity, since it resolves two carriers' clusters per call, not one. A "not linked" result is a complete, valuable answer and bills the same as "linked", same reasoning as check_carrier_identity's cluster_size == 1.

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_a": "<usdot_number_a>",
      "usdot_number_b": "<usdot_number_b>"
    },
    "name": "confirm_identity_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`usdot_number_a`	Yes	USDOT number of the first carrier you suspect is linked.
`usdot_number_b`	Yes	USDOT number of the second carrier; must differ from the first.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 9, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / usdot_number_a / description
```
Added value: +"USDOT number of the first carrier you suspect is linked."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / usdot_number_b / description
```
Added value: +"USDOT number of the second carrier; must differ from the first."
```
First observedOct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the privacy model (never reveals unheld identities), the billing model (paid, pricier than check_carrier_identity, 'not linked' bills the same as 'linked'), and the conditional return of cluster_id. This is exactly the extra context the annotations cannot carry.

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 core answer is front-loaded, but the body is long and laden with parentheticals, a dated changelog rationale, and a pointer to a docstring in another schema — some of which is history rather than operative guidance. It is readable but not tight.

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 and only two parameters, the description supplies what's missing: the boolean linked outcome, the conditional cluster_id, error classes, and cost implications. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 is 3; the description nevertheless adds real meaning — both numbers are caller-supplied, they must differ, and a failure to resolve either is a free not_found. It stops short of describing any format or range beyond what the schema states.

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 — confirming whether two given USDOT numbers share an identity cluster — and immediately frames its relationship to check_carrier_identity's removed linked_carriers field. An agent can tell exactly what question this answers without opening the 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 conditions use on already suspecting a link, explicitly excludes the 'who is linked to this carrier?' use case and routes it to check_carrier_identity, and covers edge cases (identical numbers → invalid_arguments, unresolvable number → not_found). Nothing is left to inference.

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 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.