SiteCheck Trade & Energy

Check a US customs broker against U.S. Customs and Border

logistics_customs_broker_verify

Read-only

Check a US customs broker against U.S. Customs and Border Protection's official Permitted Customs Broker Listing: filer code, broker name, city, state, work phone and e-mail where CBP lists them. Search by name, by 3-character filer code, or list a state. A broker missing from the list holds no national permit on CBP's page; individual licence numbers are not published there. Related tools on this server, for a different need: logistics_customs_cbp_manifest when you need US import bills of lading for a company: the most recent; logistics_customs_duty_calc when you need United States import duty lookup from the USITC Harmonized. 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": "logistics_customs_broker_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Part of the broker name, or a 3-character filer code such as 92K
`limit`	No	Rows to return, 1 to 100 (default 25)
`state`	No	Optional two-letter US state, e.g. TX

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No
`listed`	No
`source`	No
`brokers`	No
`matched`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`totalOnList`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: absence from the listing means no national permit rather than a lookup failure, licence numbers are not published there, and each successful call costs $0.002 via x402 while failed calls are free. The only real gap is that per-call pagination/limit behavior is left to the schema.

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 core purpose and the negative-result caveat are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the pricing note is short. The related-tools clause is however grammatically truncated ('for a different need: ... when you need United States import duty lookup from the USITC Harmonized'), which costs clarity and adds filler without improving selection.

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 3-parameter read-only lookup with a complete schema and an output schema that carries the return shape, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is queried, how to query it, what a miss means, what is deliberately unavailable, what it costs, and where to go for adjacent needs.

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%, with q, limit, and state each documented in the schema itself, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond restating the name/filer-code/state search modes. The '92K'-style filer code example is already present in the schema, so this lands at the baseline of 3.

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 and resource (check a US customs broker against CBP's Permitted Customs Broker Listing) and enumerates the search dimensions (filer code, broker name, city, state, phone, e-mail). It is clearly distinguishable from the many logistics siblings because it is scoped to broker permit verification rather than cargo, tariffs, or vessel data.

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?

It states the three usable access paths -- name search, 3-character filer code, or state listing -- and explicitly routes two adjacent needs to the correct siblings (logistics_customs_cbp_manifest for import bills of lading, logistics_customs_duty_calc for duty lookup). That is explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and alternative naming.

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

All SiteCheck Trade & Energy 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?