What SaferGrade score do FMCSA safety records produce for this carrier, and which components drive it? Returns the 0-100 score with letter grade and confidence, plus the observed inputs: 24-month inspection and out-of-service totals, driver/vehicle OOS rates vs the national baseline, crash summary, and the FMCSA safety rating on file. [price: $0.05/call]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| usdot | Yes | USDOT number (path parameter). Example: 54283. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly describes the output (score, grade, confidence, inputs) and includes pricing. Although it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, the nature of the tool (returning a score) implies no side effects. The description is transparent enough for a simple query tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose, followed by a detailed list of returned components and pricing. No redundant information exists.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple input (single parameter) and no output schema, the description completely covers what the tool returns and how it behaves. Every component of the output is listed, making it easy for an agent to understand the tool's value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters (one required string usdot with examples and description). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, leading to a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the SaferGrade score (0-100) along with its components, using a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('score for this carrier'). The output details (letter grade, confidence, inputs) differentiate it clearly from sibling tools like fmcsa_carrier_lookup or fmcsa_carrier360.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving a carrier's safety score, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fmcsa_carrier360 or fmcsa_carrier_vet. The context is clear, but explicit guidance on when-not-to-use would improve the dimension.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct domain and specific action (e.g., FDA approvals vs clearances vs recalls; firmstanding business360 dossier vs search vs screen). Even overlapping concepts like 'business360' vs 'business360_lookup' are distinguished by input (UUID vs name+state). No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All tools use a consistent lowercase snake_case pattern with domain prefix (e.g., fda_*, firmstanding_*, fmcsa_*, govcon_*). Action words (search, lookup, screen, feed, stats) follow predictable usage. The naming is uniform and easy to parse.
38 tools is on the higher end but appropriate for a comprehensive government data gateway spanning multiple agencies and datasets. Each domain has a reasonable number of tools (e.g., FMCSA: 7, OFLC: 6). Could potentially be trimmed slightly, but overall well-scoped for the stated purpose.
The tool surface covers the major government data sources comprehensively: FDA (approvals, clearances, recalls), FMCSA (carrier census, safety, insurance, etc.), FSIS, DOJ/OFLC, OSHA/EPA/DOL enforcement, SEC insider filings, clinical trials, VA facilities/opportunities/vendors, and federal contracting. No obvious gaps for the stated gateway purpose.