Apify Public Data & Leads

US Multi-State Business Entity Search

us_business_entity_search

Read-only

Search business registries across Florida, Alabama, and Wisconsin in one call to locate entities when the state is unknown, returning normalized source-tagged records.

Instructions

Search public Secretary of State business registries across Florida, Alabama, and Wisconsin in one call, returning a normalized, source-tagged record per state match.

Behavioral Transparency:

Execution: Network call executed synchronously in the cloud via Apify Actor 'captainhandsome/us-business-entity-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 15-45 seconds without detail pages, longer with include_details enabled and with more states selected; timeout capped at 120 seconds.

Usage Guidelines:

When to use: Use when a company name lookup should span multiple states at once, or when the entity's state of registration is unknown among Florida, Alabama, or Wisconsin.
When NOT to use: Do not use for a single known state where a dedicated tool exists and is faster (e.g. 'alabama_business_search' or 'florida_new_filings_search'), for states outside this coverage, for officer/person-name lookups (use 'florida_officer_search'), or for contractor licences.
Named alternatives: Use 'alabama_business_search' or 'florida_new_filings_search' for a single-state lookup, 'florida_officer_search' for a person-to-company search, or 'us_contractor_license_search'/'california_contractor_license_search' for licensed contractors rather than general business entities.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`states`	No	State registries to search. Defaults to all four supported states; narrow this to speed up a run when the state is already known.
`max_results`	No	Maximum number of normalized entity records to return and bill across all selected states. Defaults to 10.
`search_query`	Yes	Full or partial business name to search across the selected state registries (e.g. 'SMITH' or 'Smith Services LLC').
`include_details`	No	When true, opens each result's detail page to add formation date, registered agent, officers, and both address blocks. Adds one request per record and per state; leave off for a fast 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.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.3.0Sep 18, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / states / default

Previous value: -[
-  "florida",
-  "alabama",
-  "iowa",
-  "wisconsin"
-]New value: +[
+  "florida",
+  "alabama",
+  "wisconsin"
+]

changedInput schema / properties / states / items / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "florida",
-  "alabama",
-  "iowa",
-  "wisconsin"
-]New value: +[
+  "florida",
+  "alabama",
+  "wisconsin"
+]

Changed18 schema fields changedv1.1.0Sep 15, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / states / maxItems
```
Added value: +100
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / error
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / results / description
```
Removed value: -"Collection of normalized, source-tagged business-entity records matching the search query."
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / date_filed / description
```
Previous value: -"Date the entity was filed, when the source registry records one."New value: +"Date the entity was filed with the Florida Division of Corporations."
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / date_filed / title
```
Added value: +"Date filed"
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / entity_id / title
```
Added value: +"Entity ID"
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / entity_name / title
```
Added value: +"Entity name"
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / entity_type / title
```
Added value: +"Entity type"
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / location / title
```
Added value: +"Location"
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / registered_agent / description
```
Previous value: -"Name of the entity's registered agent, where recorded (requires include_details on most sources)."New value: +"Name of the entity's Florida registered agent. Null when the state records no agent."
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / registered_agent / title
```
Added value: +"Registered agent"
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / source / description
```
Previous value: -"State registry that produced the record (florida, alabama, iowa, or wisconsin)."New value: +"State registry that produced the record."
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / source / title
```
Added value: +"Source registry"
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / status / title
```
Added value: +"Entity 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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only/non-destructive, and the description adds execution model (Apify Actor), billing side effects, APIFY_TOKEN requirement, and latency/timeout bounds – all beyond what annotations provide. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well front-loaded with purpose first, then organized sections. However, the 'When NOT to use' and 'Named alternatives' bullets repeat the same alternatives, which is slightly redundant; still, every other sentence earns its place.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description covers execution, cost, auth, limits, and alternative routing – an agent has everything needed to invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds operational color (e.g., include_details slows the run) but these details are also present in the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not materially expand per-parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Search'), identifies the resource ('public Secretary of State business registries'), names the exact states covered, and explains the return shape ('normalized, source-tagged record per state match'). It clearly differentiates from siblings by naming alternatives later.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections with named alternatives include single-state tools, officer/person searches, and contractor-license searches, leaving no ambiguity about routing. This exceeds typical guidance.

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

Deploy Server