Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
warp-mcp

warp-mcp

by Ringer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Lookup company by EIN

port_lookup_ein
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up company details by EIN/Tax ID to verify entities during phone number port-in.

Instructions

Retrieve company information from TinComply by EIN/Tax ID. Used during the port-in flow for entity verification. Validate the format first with port_validate_ein_format if unsure. Errors: EIN_REQUIRED, INVALID_EIN, TINCOMPLY_ERROR, LOOKUP_FAILED.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ein": "<ein>"
    },
    "name": "port_lookup_ein"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
einYesEIN/Tax ID, 9 digits with or without hyphen, e.g. 12-3456789 or 123456789

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context (data source TinComply) and error codes, which are beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences plus an error list, front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words.

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 simple tool (one parameter, no output schema, good annotations), the description is complete enough. It mentions the purpose, context, prerequisite, and errors. Could optionally describe return format, but not lacking.

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 is 3. The description does not add significant parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (EIN format with examples).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve company information' and resource 'from TinComply by EIN/Tax ID', and provides context (port-in flow for entity verification). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool port_lookup_company_details.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (during port-in flow) and recommends validating format first with port_validate_ein_format. Also lists possible errors, providing clear guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools