Skip to main content
Glama

LiveDataLink

by io.github.blackboxfoundry

load_tender_fraud_shield

Read-onlyIdempotent

Screen a carrier before accepting or dispatching a load. Resolves the carrier and combines FMCSA authority, insurance, safety, sanctions, court, and federal-award evidence with the supplied tender context. Flags inactive authority, missing liability evidence, sanctions or litigation findings, broker-only records, and mismatches between the carrier's reported location and the tender contact address. Returns CLEAR, REVIEW, or BLOCK with reasons, source coverage, primary links, and a dispatcher verification checklist. This is an analytical fraud-screening aid, not a substitute for direct FMCSA or insurance verification.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mcNoMC/MX number. Accepts 123456 or MC-123456.
dotNoUSDOT number (preferred). Accepts 3405079 or USDOT 3405079.
nameNoCarrier legal name when DOT/MC is unavailable.
formatNoReport format. Defaults to markdown.
load_idNoOptional internal load/tender identifier to echo in the report.
carrier_addressNoAddress supplied with the tender or onboarding packet, used for a coarse location consistency check.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds substantial behavioral context: carrier resolution, multi-source evidence combination, specific flag categories, a CLEAR/REVIEW/BLOCK verdict, and an explicit caveat that it is an analytical aid, not a substitute for direct verification. No contradiction with 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 description is dense but every clause earns its place: purpose, mechanism, flags, output, and safety caveat are packed into a compact paragraph. It is front-loaded with the primary decision an agent needs to make before calling the tool.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description specifies the return format (CLEAR/REVIEW/BLOCK plus reasons, source coverage, primary links, and a checklist) and identifies input alternatives (mc, dot, name). The optional parameters are covered by the schema, and the described behavior is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the individual parameters are already well documented. The description adds interaction-level meaning by explaining that the supplied tender context and carrier_address feed into the location mismatch check and overall screening decision, which is not apparent from the schema alone.

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 action ('Screen a carrier') and identifies the exact resource and decision context. It enumerates the evidence sources, flags, and output categories, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from generic carrier lookups.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly states when to use the tool: before accepting or dispatching a load. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as carrier_vetting_score or fmcsa_carrier_authority, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of full routing clarity.

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

All LiveDataLink toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters overlap heavily—company due-diligence and risk tools (counterparty_risk_score, company_trust_check, entity_dossier, issuer_diligence_dossier, resolve_entity, entity_resolve), carrier vetting tools, sanctions screening tools, and recall tools all have subtle boundary distinctions. While descriptions are detailed, an agent navigating 294 tools will frequently struggle to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a readable snake_case domain-prefix pattern (fdic_, edgar_, sanctions_, congress_), which helps. However, verb placement is inconsistent—search_available_datasets vs cdc_dataset_query, resolve_entity vs entity_resolve—and synonyms like search, lookup, get, detail, fetch, and status are used interchangeably.

Tool Count1/5

294 tools is an extreme number for a single MCP server, far beyond what an agent can reliably hold in context or select from accurately. The presence of tool-group discovery helpers mitigates but does not solve the fundamental scale problem.

Completeness4/5

The data breadth is genuinely extensive, covering finance, health, legal, real estate, transportation, energy, cyber, education, and many other domains, often with generic query fallbacks. Still, some capabilities are shallow or incomplete—package tracking stops at a link, property tools are demo-only in places, and caselaw coverage is limited—so it is not a fully complete surface.

Resources