Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Sos Entities

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Sos Entity

sos_entity
Read-onlyIdempotent

Full registry record for one business entity by state and entity number: legal name, type, status, formation date, principal address, registered agent, and officers/directors/managers as [{name, role}] where the state publishes them (FL up to six officers, CT principals, PA parties, NY chairman/CEO, OR authorized representative; CO and TX publish none). Individuals' addresses are never included. Get entity_number from sos_search or sos_new_entities.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "state": "PA",
      "entity_number": "0006306940"
    },
    "name": "sos_entity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stateYesTwo-letter state: FL, NY, CO, OR, CT, TX, PA.
entity_numberYesThe state's entity number: FL document number (e.g. "L26000507120"), NY DOS ID, CO entity ID, OR registry number, CT business ALEI/account number, TX taxpayer number or SOS file number, PA filing number.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description still adds substantial behavioral context: officers/principals are populated only 'where the state publishes them,' with per-state coverage named (FL max six officers, CT principals, PA parties, NY chairman/CEO, OR authorized representative) and the explicit negative case that 'CO and TX publish none.' It also sets a privacy expectation up front: 'Individuals' addresses are never included.'

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with purpose and ending with the prerequisite-navigation hint. The state-by-state parenthetical is long but each clause carries new information; no filler sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value semantics — and it does, listing every field and explaining why officer/agent data may be absent per state. For a two-parameter, read-only lookup, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a state enum and per-state entity-number formats, so the schema does the heavy lifting (baseline 3). The description adds real value beyond it by telling the agent where entity_number must come from (sos_search/sos_new_entities), which is invocation guidance the schema cannot express.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Full registry record for one business entity by state and entity number.' It then enumerates exactly what fields come back, which distinguishes it decisively from the sibling search/list tools (sos_search, sos_new_entities).

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?

The final sentence routes the agent correctly for the hardest prerequisite: 'Get entity_number from sos_search or sos_new_entities.' That is clear workflow guidance. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use framing (e.g., 'use sos_search instead if you only have a name'), so it is not quite a 5.

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

All Sos Entities 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