Skip to main content
Glama

LiveDataLink

by io.github.blackboxfoundry

wa_contractor_verify

Read-onlyIdempotent

Live Washington contractor registration lookup from the official L&I open-data API. Search by exact contractor license number or business name. Returns registration status, expiry, trade/type, public business details, separately reported insurance context, and official source links. Informational only: verify material decisions in L&I's Verify tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum candidate records when searching by business name. Default 5.
business_nameNoBusiness name or distinctive name fragment. Used only when license_number is not supplied.
license_numberNoExact Washington contractor license number, if known.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it is a live lookup, returns official source links, includes separately reported insurance context (which avoids overstating coverage), and explicitly says it is informational only. This is useful transparency that goes beyond the structured hints.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, the search modes and return contents are stated compactly, and the caveat is placed at the end. Every 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?

For a low-complexity read-only tool with rich annotations, a complete input schema, and no output schema, the description covers all essentials: what it queries, how to query it, what it returns, and how to treat the results. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it 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 the parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description mostly restates the same information ('Search by exact contractor license number or business name') without adding new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly identifies a specific verb ('lookup'/'search'), a specific resource ('Washington contractor registration'), and an authoritative source ('official L&I open-data API'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like contractor_license_sources or contractor_multistate_route.

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 provides clear usage context: search by exact license number or business name, and it warns that this is informational only and material decisions should be verified in L&I's Verify tool. It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling contractor-related tools or list exclusions.

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