Skip to main content
Glama

Fmcsa

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Fmcsa Operating Authority

fmcsa_operating_authority
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a carrier's FMCSA operating authority by USDOT number: the MC docket number and the status of its common-carrier, contract-carrier, and broker authority (Active / Inactive / Pending / Revoked). Keyless. Answers "is this carrier authorized to operate / broker freight" — the legal authority to haul, complementing the census (fmcsa_carrier_lookup) and safety (fmcsa_safety_snapshot).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dot_numberYesUSDOT number, e.g. 54283.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "dot_number": "54283"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that the tool is 'Keyless' (no API key required) and specifies the response fields. It doesn't disclose rate limits or data freshness, but adds meaningful context beyond annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. No extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the output fields, use case, and differentiation. It is complete for an AI agent to understand when and how to use it.

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%, baseline 3. The description repeats 'by USDOT number' which matches the schema's parameter description, and adds 'Keyless' (not parameter-related). It adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'carrier's FMCSA operating authority', and lists the specific outputs (MC docket number, authority statuses). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning complementarity with fmcsa_carrier_lookup and fmcsa_safety_snapshot.

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?

The description clearly states when to use this tool ('Answers is this carrier authorized to operate/broker freight') and explicitly contrasts it with census (fmcsa_carrier_lookup) and safety (fmcsa_safety_snapshot) tools, providing direct usage guidance.

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

All Fmcsa toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is notable overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical, as are bet_research and polymarket_edges. Detailed descriptions help, but an agent could still struggle to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: snake_case (fmcsa_carrier_lookup), verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, recall), and phrases (suggest_questions, generate_llms_txt). No consistent pattern, making it harder for an agent to infer tool purpose from name alone.

Tool Count3/5

35 tools is high for a single server, but the server aggregates many domains. While each tool may serve a purpose, the count feels bloated and beyond typical scope (3-15). Some tools could be merged (e.g., the ask_pipeworx variants).

Completeness2/5

For the FMCSA domain, the four tools provide decent coverage. However, the server includes many tools for other domains (e.g., prediction markets, company profiles) without full lifecycle support (e.g., only lookup, no create/update). The set feels like a random collection rather than a coherent domain.

Resources