Apify Public Data & Leads

California CSLB Contractor License Search

california_contractor_license_search

Read-only

Search California CSLB records by contractor or business name to verify licenses and obtain license number, status, city, and name type for contractor vetting and lead building.

Instructions

Search public California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) records by contractor or business name, returning license number, status, city, and name type.

Behavioral Transparency:

Execution: Network call executed synchronously in the cloud via Apify Actor 'captainhandsome/ca-contractor-license-search'.
Side Effects: Reads public sources and creates a billed Actor run and dataset on your Apify account.
Authentication: Requires APIFY_TOKEN environment variable.
Latency & Limits: Typical run duration is 10-30 seconds without detail pages, longer with include_details enabled; timeout capped at 120 seconds.

Usage Guidelines:

When to use: Use for subcontractor vetting, contractor license verification, or lead building against California licensed contractors and businesses.
When NOT to use: Do not use for Oregon-only licence lookups (use 'us_contractor_license_search' with states=['oregon']), business entity/registry searches, or non-contractor trades.
Named alternatives: Use 'us_contractor_license_search' to search California and Oregon in one call, or 'alabama_business_search'/'florida_new_filings_search'/'us_business_entity_search' for general business-entity registries rather than contractor licences.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`max_results`	No	Maximum number of licence records to return and bill. Defaults to 10.
`search_query`	Yes	Full or partial contractor or business name to search in California CSLB records (e.g. 'SMITH' or 'Smith Construction').
`include_details`	No	When true, opens each licence's CSLB detail page to add issue/expiration dates, business address and phone, classifications, bonding, and workers' comp status. Slower; leave off for a fast name-and-status lookup.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`run`	No
`error`	No
`status`	Yes
`results`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed19 schema fields changedv1.1.0Sep 15, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
addedOutput schema / properties / error
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
```

removedOutput schema / properties / results / description

Removed value: -"Collection of California contractor-license records matching the search query."

changedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / business_entity / description

Previous value: -"Legal form CSLB holds for the licensee, from the licence detail page (requires include_details)."New value: +"Legal form CSLB holds for the licensee, from the licence detail page."

addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / business_entity / title
```
Added value: +"Business entity type"
```
addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / city / title
```
Added value: +"City"
```
addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / contractor_name / title
```
Added value: +"Contractor name"
```

changedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / expire_date / description

Previous value: -"Date the licence expires (requires include_details)."New value: +"Date the licence expires."

addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / expire_date / title
```
Added value: +"Expiration date"
```

changedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / issue_date / description

Previous value: -"Date CSLB issued the licence (requires include_details)."New value: +"Date CSLB issued the licence."

addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / issue_date / title
```
Added value: +"Issue date"
```
addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / license_number / title
```
Added value: +"License number"
```

changedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / name_type / description

Previous value: -"CSLB classification for the displayed name when present (e.g. print, previous)."New value: +"CSLB classification for the displayed name when present."

addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / name_type / title
```
Added value: +"Name type"
```

changedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / status / description

Previous value: -"Current license status displayed by CSLB (e.g. Active, Expired)."New value: +"Current license status displayed by CSLB."

addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / status / title
```
Added value: +"License status"
```
addedOutput schema / properties / run
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / status

Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "success",
+    "empty_unverified",
+    "partial",
+    "error"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "results"
-]New value: +[
+  "results",
+  "status"
+]

Addedv1.0.11Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) by disclosing the execution model (network call via Apify Actor), side effects (billed run and dataset creation), authentication requirement (APIFY_TOKEN), and latency limits (10-30 seconds, 120s timeout). This is comprehensive and adds significant context.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (main purpose, Behavioral Transparency, Usage Guidelines). Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It remains readable despite covering many facets.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (network call, auth, billing, latency, output schema), the description covers all essential operational aspects: execution, side effects, authentication, latency, and usage boundaries. The presence of an output schema means return-format details are not required in the description. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so all parameters already have detailed descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add extra parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., the include_details speed tradeoff is already in the schema). Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full burden.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Search public California CSLB records by contractor or business name,' and it enumerates the returned fields (license number, status, city, name type). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like us_contractor_license_search, which covers multiple states, and general business registries.

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?

A dedicated 'Usage Guidelines' section explicitly states when to use (vetting, verification, lead building) and when NOT to use (Oregon-only lookups, business entity searches, non-contractor trades), naming specific alternative tools. This is the gold standard for routing an agent correctly.

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