TruckerFetch MCP

Official

by truckerfetch

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Hybrid

list_insurance_filings

Read-only

Retrieve observed insurance filings and independently supported dates for a U.S. motor carrier using its USDOT number.

Instructions

List observed insurance filings and independently supported dates.

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": {
      "usdot": "<usdot>"
    },
    "name": "list_insurance_filings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`usdot`	Yes
`cursor`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain what "observed" means, whether results are paginated, or what happens when a USDOT has no filings, and the phrase "independently supported dates" is left opaque.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. But brevity here comes at the cost of clarity, since the trailing clause is unparsable without domain knowledge.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description should describe the shape of the returned filings and its pagination contract, and it does neither. For a tool requiring a numeric identifier plus paging controls, this leaves the agent unable to call it correctly on the first attempt.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails: usdot (the required key), limit (bounded 1-100), and cursor (pagination token) are never mentioned. The agent gets no hint that usdot is mandatory, what it identifies, or that cursor-based paging exists.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"List observed insurance filings" gives a clear verb and resource, so the basic operation is identifiable. However, the second half, "independently supported dates," is unexplained jargon that does not tell an agent what a supported date is, and nothing distinguishes this from siblings such as get_evidence or list_changes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the 21 sibling tools. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the filings-list counterpart to get_carrier or get_evidence.

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