SiteCheck Company Records

Texas TDLR licence holders from the 'TDLR - All Licenses'

gov_tdlr_texas

Read-only

Texas TDLR licence holders from the 'TDLR - All Licenses' open data set: licence type, number, business name, county and expiry date. Search by business name (3+ letters) or licence number. Owner phone and personal contact fields are not returned. Takes about 13 s; allow a 30 s timeout. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gov_tdlr_texas"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Records to return, 1 to 20 (default 5)
`businessName`	No	Business name text, 3 to 60 characters (optional if licenseNumber is set)
`licenseNumber`	No	Licence number, digits only, up to 12 digits (optional)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No
`source`	No
`licences`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses the approximate latency (~13 s) and a concrete call-side timeout recommendation (30 s), the pricing model ($0.002 USDC via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc) with the important caveat that failed calls are not charged, and a data-availability limit (owner phone and personal contact fields are not returned). Those are exactly the operational facts an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the search modes, then the exclusion, then latency, then cost. Every sentence carries distinct decision-relevant information with no filler or repetition of the title.

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 a full output schema and readOnly/openWorld annotations already supplied, this description fills the remaining gaps an agent needs: latency/timeout budget, per-call cost and payment rail, failure billing semantics, and the fields deliberately withheld. 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit, businessName (3–60 chars) and licenseNumber. The description restates the '3+ letters' minimum and the name-or-number alternative but adds no format, encoding, or matching-behavior detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (search/retrieve) and resource (Texas TDLR licence holders) and enumerates the returned fields (licence type, number, business name, county, expiry). Naming the exact source data set distinguishes it from generic business-registry siblings, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest lookalikes such as b2b_texas_sos_business or b2b_nrc_licenses, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Search by business name (3+ letters) or licence number' implies how to invoke it, but there is no statement about when to prefer it over b2b_texas_sos_business (entity registrations) or other state licence siblings, and no when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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?