Clerkfield MCP Server

Search UCC liens

search_liens

Read-only

Search UCC lien filings by debtor or lender in supported states to retrieve filing status, parties, collateral, amendments, and active/lapsed/terminated summaries.

Instructions

List UCC financing statements filed against a business (debtor) or filed by a lender (secured party), newest first, with a summary of active, lapsed and terminated filings and the lenders on active filings. Each filing has its file number, dates, status, parties, collateral and later amendments. Covered states: AL, AR, CT, FL, ID, KY, NE, NJ, NM, RI; search by lender in CT, FL, NE, NM, RI.

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": {
      "state": "<state>"
    },
    "name": "search_liens"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`state`	Yes	Two-letter state code, e.g. FL
`debtor`	No	Business name to search (give debtor or secured_party)
`active_only`	No	Only active filings (default false)
`secured_party`	No	Lender name to search

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond them by describing ordering, an active/lapsed/terminated summary, and per-filing contents including amendments. It omits result limits, pagination, and behavior when a debtor or lender name has no matches.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose and return shape come first, then the state coverage constraints. Every clause carries usable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining the return shape (file number, dates, status, parties, collateral, amendments) and the supported states. It still leaves open questions about result caps, pagination, and empty-result behavior for a four-parameter search tool.

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 would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: secured_party searching is restricted to specific states, which the schema's parameter text does not mention. The debtor-vs-secured_party choice is restated but not deepened further.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List UCC financing statements') and clarifies the two search angles (debtor vs. secured party). It also states ordering ('newest first') and the returned summary. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_coverage, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives concrete usage constraints: the tool is available only for ten named states, and lender-based searches work only in CT, FL, NE, NM, RI. It does not state when to prefer this over get_coverage or verify_business, and there are no explicit when-not conditions, so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server