B2A Fulfillment Factory

skip_trace_owner_phone_finder

Read-only

Identify the human managing member or registered agent behind an LLC or property owner, then resolve verified mobile phone numbers, deliverable emails, and OFAC/GLEIF screening.

Instructions

Pierce anonymous real estate LLCs or property owner names to identify the human managing member/registered agent, resolve verified wireless mobile phone numbers and deliverable emails, geocode via U.S. Census TigerWeb, and screen against U.S. Treasury OFAC SDN and GLEIF LEI KYB registries.

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": {
      "companyOrOwnerNames": "<companyOrOwnerNames>",
      "addresses": "<addresses>"
    },
    "name": "skip_trace_owner_phone_finder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`addresses`	Yes	Corresponding property street addresses with city, state, and 5-digit ZIP code (e.g. ['1201 Main St Ste 1980, Columbia, SC 29201'])
`reportType`	No	Enrichment depth: 'skip_trace_only', 'pierce_llc_and_skip_trace', or 'full_kyb_guarantor_diligence'	pierce_llc_and_skip_trace
`includeLiens`	No	Include involuntary lien, tax delinquency, and pre-foreclosure flags when available
`companyOrOwnerNames`	Yes	Array of LLC entity names or individual property owner names to pierce and skip-trace (e.g. ['PALMETTO INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS LLC'])

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.2.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description earns credit for naming external data sources (Census TigerWeb, OFAC SDN, GLEIF LEI) that explain the open-world flag. It stays silent on traits an agent would want for a multi-source enrichment call: cost, latency, whether 'verified' phone numbers are guaranteed present, permissible-purpose/FCRA constraints for skip tracing, and partial-match behavior.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the core action (pierce LLCs/owner names) before listing downstream enrichments. It is dense and slightly run-on, but every clause carries distinct information and none is padding.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a high-complexity, four-stage enrichment tool with no output schema, the description should describe the shape of what comes back (per-record phone/email/geocode/sanctions fields) and any batching limits, since maxItems=25 per array is schema-only. Listing deliverables loosely is helpful but leaves an agent guessing at the response structure and failure modes.

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 all four parameters — including the reportType enum — are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description could have added value by mapping its described stages (geocode, OFAC/GLEIF screening) onto the specific reportType levels and by explaining how companyOrOwnerNames and addresses are paired, but it does not.

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 names concrete verbs and resources: piercing LLC/owner names to a managing member or registered agent, resolving wireless phones and emails, geocoding via Census TigerWeb, and screening OFAC SDN and GLEIF LEI. That four-stage enumeration lets an agent distinguish this composite workflow from the standalone gleif_lei_kyb sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reportType enum (skip_trace_only / pierce_llc_and_skip_trace / full_kyb_guarantor_diligence) signals depth tiers, but the description never states when to pick a shallow tier, when this tool is overkill versus a simple LEI or registry lookup, or what prerequisites exist. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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