Govparse Government Data Gateway

ttb_permittees_search

Which distilleries, wineries, alcohol importers, and wholesalers hold a federal TTB basic permit in a market? Search the TTB List of Permittees by owner, operating/DBA name, permit number, permit_type (S/W/I/P), industry, state, city, county, zip, entity_id, or new-permit-only (new=true, a new-business trigger). Returns the permittee, operating name, address, industry type, and entity-resolved owner. Excludes brewers/tobacco (IRC 6103). TTB public-domain records. [price: $0.05/row]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`new`	No	true = newly-issued permits only (< 7 days) — a new-business trigger.
`zip`	No	Premise ZIP code.
`city`	No	Premise city fragment.
`sort`	No	permit_number \| owner \| city :asc\|:desc. Default permit_number:asc.
`limit`	No	Max rows (default 25, cap 100).
`owner`	No	Permit-holder (owner) name — suffix/punctuation-insensitive.
`state`	No	Premise state code(s), CSV.
`county`	No	Premise county fragment.
`offset`	No	Rows to skip.
`industry`	No	Industry type (Distilled Spirits Plant \| Wine Producer \| Importer (Alcohol) \| Wholesaler (Alcohol)), CSV.
`entity_id`	No	Resolved owner entity UUID (pivots to business360).
`permit_type`	No	S = distilled spirits, W = wine, I = importer, P = wholesaler.
`permit_number`	No	TTB permit number(s), CSV (STATE-TYPE-SEQ).
`operating_name`	No	Operating / DBA name fragment.

Schema Changelog

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

AddedJul 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the return fields (permittee, operating name, address, industry, owner), exclusions (brewers/tobacco), and pricing. It also notes the data is public-domain.

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 front-loaded with a question and covers all key points in a few sentences. It includes pricing, which is useful but slightly extraneous. Overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has many parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains inputs, outputs, exclusions, and pricing. It is complete for a search tool of this complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists searchable parameters but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, though it highlights the 'new' parameter as a new-business trigger.

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 clearly states the tool searches for TTB basic permit holders (distilleries, wineries, importers, wholesalers) by multiple criteria, and distinguishes itself by explicitly excluding brewers and tobacco. It provides a specific verb and resource.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use (searching for TTB permittees) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with sibling tools. No alternatives are mentioned.

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

All Govparse Government Data Gateway tools Inspect

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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count4/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?