SiteCheck Company Records

FMCSA carrier census record by USDOT number from the public

gov_fmcsa_carrier_safety

Read-only

FMCSA carrier census record by USDOT number from the public FMCSA Company Census File (data.transportation.gov): legal name, address, power units, drivers, status code and registration dates. Census file, not live inspection or crash data. Related tools on this server, for a different need: gov_fmcsa_household_goods_complaints when you need US interstate movers and their household-goods complaint. 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": {
      "dot": "<dot>"
    },
    "name": "gov_fmcsa_carrier_safety"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dot`	Yes	USDOT number, digits only, 1 to 8 digits

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	No
`carriers`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the dataset provenance, the explicit statement that this is not live inspection/crash data, and a precise cost model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, failures not charged). That pricing and non-charging-on-failure detail is behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Content is front-loaded onto the resource and its fields, then scope limits, then the alternative tool, then payment terms. The latter half is a dense run-on sentence packing payment rails and pricing, but every sentence carries information an agent needs (cost, exclusions, sibling routing).

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?

For a single-parameter read with an output schema present, the description need not explain return values; it nonetheless summarizes them. Provenance, scope limits, sibling alternative, and payment behavior are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling.

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% and the single parameter is described there as digits only, 1 to 8 digits, so the description adds little beyond restating "by USDOT number." Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully carries the parameter contract.

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 description names a specific verb/resource pair (FMCSA carrier census record by USDOT number) and enumerates the returned fields (legal name, address, power units, drivers, status code, registration dates). It also names the upstream dataset, which lets an agent distinguish it from the many other business-registry 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?

It explicitly bounds scope with "Census file, not live inspection or crash data" and routes a different need to gov_fmcsa_household_goods_complaints. It stops short of stating the positive condition ("use when you have a USDOT number and need carrier identity/fleet size"), but the exclusion plus sibling routing is clear guidance.

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?