SiteCheck Company Records

Owner of record for a New York City property: owner name

b2b_skip_trace

Read-only

Owner of record for a New York City property: owner name, tax lot (BBL), building class, land use, year built, floors, units, lot and building area, assessed value and zoning, from NYC's public PLUTO tax-lot file. NYC only. Public property records only: no phone, e-mail or people-search data. 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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "b2b_skip_trace"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Matches to return, 1 to 10 (default 5)
`address`	Yes	Street address in New York City, e.g. 358 5 Avenue or 358 Fifth Ave (required)
`borough`	No	Optional borough code: MN, BX, BK, QN or SI

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`count`	No
`query`	No
`source`	No
`matches`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description discloses the commercial terms an agent must reason about: $0.002 USDC per successful call, x402 payment on Base/Solana/Arc, and that failed calls are not charged. It does not mention PLUTO's update cadence or what a zero-match response looks like, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and scoped by data source before moving to the constraints and pricing. The long field enumeration is justified because it tells the agent exactly what attributes come back, though it reads as a list dump rather than prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers source, geography, privacy limits, and cost. The remaining gap is minor: it does not address ambiguity handling when multiple lots match an address, though the limit parameter hints at it.

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%, so address format, borough codes, and the 1-10 limit are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that the address must be a New York City street address, adding little beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (owner of record plus tax lot, building class, land use, year built, area, assessed value, zoning) and names the exact source, NYC's PLUTO tax-lot file. It also pre-empts confusion with the tool's own name by clarifying this is not a people-search skip trace, which distinguishes it from the many directory-style siblings.

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?

"NYC only" and "Public property records only: no phone, e-mail or people-search data" give clear inclusion and exclusion conditions, so an agent knows when this tool will not satisfy a contact-lookup request. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative to use instead, which is the only missing piece.

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?