Sos Entities

Sos New Entities

sos_new_entities

Read-onlyIdempotent

Business entities newly formed in one state since a date — new LLCs, corporations and partnerships, newest first (formation dates from since through today; delayed-effective future dates are left out), with entity number, name, type, formation date, principal address and source, plus data_as_of. Optional name and entity-type filters. Deterministic order (formation date, then entity number). Florida reaches back 70 days; the other states any date. Use for new-business lead lists and formation monitoring.

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": {
      "limit": 5,
      "since": "2026-10-01",
      "state": "CO"
    },
    "name": "sos_new_entities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max results (default 100, max 1000).
`since`	Yes	Formation date on or after, YYYY-MM-DD, e.g. "2026-10-01".
`state`	Yes	Two-letter state: FL, NY, CO, OR, CT, TX, PA.
`name_query`	No	Only names containing this text, e.g. "dental".
`entity_type`	No	Only types containing this text, e.g. "limited liability" or "LLC" or "corporation".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: newest-first sorting, deterministic tie-break (formation date then entity number), exclusion of delayed-effective future dates, and the Florida 70-day reach-back limit. These are exactly the operational constraints an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 scope and ordering are front-loaded, and every clause carries information (fields returned, ordering, date bounds, use case). It is dense to the point of being one long breath, but no sentence is filler.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (entity number, name, type, formation date, principal address, source, data_as_of). Combined with the ordering and date-window rules, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: `since` is anchored to formation date rather than filing date, the window runs through today with future-dated filings dropped, and the name/entity-type filters are described as optional substring filters. That goes beyond the schema's per-parameter text.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource+scope: newly formed business entities in one state since a date, enumerating LLCs, corporations and partnerships. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like sos_entity (single lookup) and sos_search (general search) without needing the schema.

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?

"Use for new-business lead lists and formation monitoring" gives a clear use context, and the date-window behavior (FL 70 days vs. other states any date) helps an agent decide if this tool fits the request. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when *not* to use it (e.g., for historical/existing entities that predate the window).

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

All Sos Entities 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.