Clerkfield MCP Server

Verify a business

verify_business

Read-only

Check a U.S. business against its formation state's official registry for a pass, review, or fail verdict with flags and official record details.

Instructions

Check a U.S. business against the official registry of the state it was formed in. Returns a verdict (pass, review or fail) with flags explaining why (name match, active status, months in business, whether the owner is listed), plus the state's record: legal name, entity id, status, formation date, addresses, registered agent and officers. Covered states: AL, AR, CO, CT, FL, ID, KY, MN, NJ, NM, NY, ND, OR, PA, TX.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Business name, as the applicant gave it
`owner`	No	Applicant's name, checked against the officers the state lists
`state`	Yes	Two-letter state code where the business was formed, e.g. NY
`min_months`	No	Minimum months in business (default 6)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes further by disclosing the return shape — a pass/review/fail verdict, the four flag criteria (name match, active status, months in business, owner listed), and the state record fields. It does not mention latency, cost, error behavior for unsupported states, or what 'review' means in practice, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then outputs, then coverage constraints. The state list is compressed into one line and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 takes on the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, and it flags the geographic limitation that would otherwise cause silent failures. The remaining gap is behavior for out-of-coverage states and any cost/credential prerequisites for an external registry call.

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 real meaning: 'owner' is checked against officers the state lists, and 'months in business' is an explicit verdict criterion tied to min_months. It does not restate the two-letter state format or the default of 6 months.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check a U.S. business against the official registry of the state it was formed in') and delimits scope by naming the 16 covered states. It is clearly a verification/registry-lookup operation, distinct from coverage lookup or lien search.

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?

The opening sentence and the covered-states list make the intended use clear: verify an applicant's business in a supported formation state. However, it never states what to do when the state is not in the list (e.g., call get_coverage first) or when verification is not appropriate, so no explicit exclusions or sibling routing are given.

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

Deploy Server