SiteCheck Company Records

Texas active franchise taxpayers: searches by taxpayer name

b2b_texas_sos_business

Read-only

Texas active franchise taxpayers (Comptroller open data, data.texas.gov): searches by taxpayer name and returns SOS file number, charter date, status code, organisation type and address. Public open data; not a live SOS filing search and no officer data. 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_ny_business_entity when you need New York Department of State active corporations: searches. 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_texas_sos_business"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	Yes	Taxpayer name part, letters, digits, spaces and . , & - only, 2 to 60 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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses the data source (Comptroller open data, data.texas.gov), the coverage gap (not a live SOS filing search, no officer data), and the billing model: $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 with failed calls not charged. Cost-on-success and the data-staleness caveat are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before spending a paid 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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then exclusions, then sibling routing, then price — a sensible priority order. The payment clause is dense boilerplate (Base, Solana or Arc) that could be trimmed without loss, keeping it short of full marks.

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 an output schema present, return fields are already covered, yet the description still summarizes them. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the description adds source provenance, data limitations, sibling alternatives and cost — nothing material for correct invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the q character constraints and limit range are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that the search is by taxpayer name, adding no syntax or formatting detail beyond the structured fields, which is the baseline-3 case.

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: 'searches by taxpayer name' over 'Texas active franchise taxpayers (Comptroller open data, data.texas.gov)', and enumerates the returned fields. It also distinguishes itself from similarly named registry siblings by naming b2b_chicago_business_licenses and b2b_ny_business_entity explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use routing: use b2b_chicago_business_licenses for Chicago city licenses and b2b_ny_business_entity for New York DOS corporations, framing each as 'a different need'. It also states exclusions — 'not a live SOS filing search and no officer data' — so an agent knows when this tool is the wrong fit.

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?