Apify Public Data & Leads

Wisconsin Business Entity Registry Search

wisconsin_business_search

Read-only

Search official Wisconsin DFI registry by company name to verify entity status, registration date, and retrieve agent, office, or former-name details for business lead enrichment.

Instructions

Search the official Wisconsin DFI corporate registry by company name. Returns entity ID, legal name, entity type, registration date, and status, with optional agent, office, annual-report, former-name, and foreign-organization detail.

Behavioral Transparency:

Execution: Network call executed synchronously in the cloud via Apify Actor 'captainhandsome/wi-business-entity-search'.
Side Effects: Creates a billed Actor run and dataset on your Apify account; queries the public Wisconsin DFI registry.
Authentication: Requires APIFY_TOKEN.
Latency & Limits: Typical runs take 10-30 seconds without details and longer with detail pages; timeout capped at 120 seconds.

Usage Guidelines:

When to use: Use for Wisconsin entity verification, status checks, registered-agent research, former-name discovery, and business lead enrichment.
When NOT to use: Do not use for other states, contractor licences, or a legal good-standing determination.
Named alternatives: Use 'us_business_entity_search' for a multi-state lookup, 'us_contractor_license_search' for licensed contractors.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`max_results`	No	Maximum records returned and billed.
`search_query`	Yes	Full or partial Wisconsin business name.
`include_details`	No	Add registered agent, office addresses, annual-report year, former name, and foreign-entity details.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.3.0Sep 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description goes well beyond by disclosing synchronous network execution via an Apify Actor, billing side-effects on the user's account, APIFY_TOKEN requirement, typical latency, and a 120-second timeout. This adds substantive behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining content is organized into clearly labeled sections (Behavioral Transparency, Usage Guidelines). Every sentence serves a purpose, and the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 network/billing complexity and the existing output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage, side-effects, authentication, latency, limits, and alternatives. An agent has everything needed to decide when to use it and what to expect.

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% and each parameter already has a clear description. The description's mention of 'optional agent, office, annual-report, former-name, and foreign-organization detail' largely mirrors the include_details schema text, so it adds marginal new value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('official Wisconsin DFI corporate registry'), and scope ('by company name'), and enumerates the returned fields. The title and opening sentence clearly differentiate it from multi-state and contractor tools, and the Usage Guidelines section explicitly names alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (verification, status checks, registered-agent research, former-name discovery, lead enrichment), when-not-to-use (other states, contractor licenses, legal good-standing), and named alternatives ('us_business_entity_search', 'us_contractor_license_search'). This is the strongest possible usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server