SiteCheck Company Records

New York Department of State active corporations: searches

b2b_ny_business_entity

Read-only

New York Department of State active corporations: searches by entity name and returns entity type, county, initial filing date and service-of-process address. Public open data (Socrata), updated monthly; not a credit or ownership report. Takes about 20 s; allow a 45 s timeout. Related tools on this server, for a different need: b2b_chicago_business_licenses when you need city of Chicago current active business licenses: searches; b2b_texas_sos_business when you need Texas active franchise taxpayers: searches by taxpayer name. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "b2b_ny_business_entity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	Yes	Entity name part, letters, digits, spaces, . , & and - only, 2 to 80 characters
`limit`	No	Rows to return, 1 to 25 (default 10)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`query`	No
`source`	No
`results`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, the description discloses data provenance and freshness (Socrata public open data, updated monthly), a latency expectation with a concrete 45 s timeout recommendation, and per-call billing semantics with the explicit note that failed calls are not charged. That is materially more than the annotations supply and directly affects how an agent should plan the call.

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 first sentence front-loads what the tool does and what it returns, followed by provenance, caveat, latency, alternatives, and price in a sensible order. It is dense but every clause carries operational information; the price sentence is the only element that could be trimmed for a reader who already knows the billing model.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and everything else an agent needs is present: dataset scope, freshness, runtime budget, cost, and sibling routing. For a two-parameter read-only lookup, there is no material 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (q, limit) are documented in the schema with length bounds and a default, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that search is by entity name and adds no matching rules, partial-match behavior, or limit guidance beyond the schema.

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?

"Searches by entity name" gives a specific verb and resource, and the description enumerates the returned fields (entity type, county, initial filing date, service-of-process address), which pins down exactly which NY dataset this is. It also names two sibling tools for adjacent jurisdictions, so the agent can separate it from b2b_chicago_business_licenses and b2b_texas_sos_business.

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?

Explicit scope boundaries are given: "not a credit or ownership report" tells the agent when NOT to use it, and the related-tools sentence routes Chicago licenses and Texas taxpayer lookups elsewhere. What is missing is guidance against the nearest neighbors still inside New York scope (e.g. b2b_nyc_business_licenses, b2b_nyc_certified_business), so the exclusion set is incomplete rather than absent.

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

All SiteCheck Company Records 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?