Skip to main content
Glama

LiveDataLink

by io.github.blackboxfoundry
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

carrier_vetting_score

Read-onlyIdempotent

Vet a US motor carrier (trucking company) for a freight-brokerage review, in one call. Give a USDOT number, MC number, or carrier name. Joins FMCSA public safety data (operating authority, insurance on file, crash and out-of-service history vs the national average, safety rating, and CSA BASIC indicators where FMCSA publishes them) with sanctions screening (OFAC/UN/EU/BIS on the carrier's legal name), federal-court litigation history (CourtListener), and USAspending federal awards. Returns a GO / CAUTION / NO-GO decision-support result with reasons and the underlying fields. NO-GO is triggered by a sanctions match or lack of active operating authority; CAUTION by published BASIC alerts, fatal crashes, missing required liability insurance, high out-of-service rates, litigation, or an unavailable source. This is an analytical aid, not a substitute for your own carrier-onboarding checks.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mcNoMC (motor carrier) number, without the 'MC-' prefix. Used if no DOT number is given.
dotNoUSDOT number of the carrier (most precise). Example: 76830.
nameNoCarrier legal name, used if no DOT/MC number is given. The top FMCSA name match is vetted; prefer a DOT number for an exact carrier.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / dot / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
    • changedInput schema / properties / mc / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / dot / description
      Previous value: -"USDOT number (preferred). Accepts 76830 or USDOT 76830."New value: +"USDOT number of the carrier (most precise). Example: 76830."
    • changedInput schema / properties / dot / type
      Previous value: -[
-  "number",
-  "string"
-]New value: +"number"
    • changedInput schema / properties / mc / description
      Previous value: -"MC number. Accepts 123456 or MC-123456."New value: +"MC (motor carrier) number, without the 'MC-' prefix. Used if no DOT number is given."
    • changedInput schema / properties / mc / type
      Previous value: -[
-  "number",
-  "string"
-]New value: +"number"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld), while the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the exact NO-GO and CAUTION trigger conditions, how unavailable sources are handled, and an explicit 'analytical aid, not a substitute' disclaimer. This is rich disclosure well beyond what the structured fields provide.

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 description is a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded (purpose, then inputs, then data sources, then decision rules, then disclaimer) and every sentence carries information. It is on the longer side but the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return shape (GO/CAUTION/NO-GO plus reasons and underlying fields) and enumerates the contributing data sources. For a multi-source analytical tool with annotations already covering safety, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 dot, mc, and name with precedence rules. The description only restates that any of the three identifiers may be given and adds no syntax or precedence detail beyond the schema, so 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 precise verb+resource+scope: 'Vet a US motor carrier (trucking company) for a freight-brokerage review, in one call.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling aggregators like carrier_vetting_evidence_pack and carrier_vetting_batch, and from raw-data tools like fmcsa_carrier_lookup.

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?

Gives clear context (freight-brokerage carrier onboarding) and notes it accepts DOT, MC, or name, plus 'in one call' implying it consolidates several lookups. It does not, however, explicitly name when to prefer siblings such as carrier_vetting_batch or the raw fmcsa_* lookups over this one.

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

All LiveDataLink toolsInspect
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