Skip to main content
Glama

Sanctions person candidates

sanctions_person_candidates
Read-onlyIdempotent

Review candidates for the natural persons that public registers link to the companies on the caller's team's book (officers, shareholders, beneficial owners), matched by name and by the list's own aliases against the person designations on the six official sanctions lists (EU Financial Sanctions Files, UK Sanctions List, OFAC SDN, OFAC non SDN, the Swiss sanctions list of SECO and the UN Security Council Consolidated List). A date of birth or nationality both sides state that contradicts removes a candidate. A candidate is review material, never a match, and sets no portfolio status or score; each row names the list, the designation reference, the listed names, the fields that matched (matched_on) and those that narrowed (narrowed_on), a link to the official file, and status open or confirmed (an analyst confirmed it on the dashboard, where decisions are made). The result also carries lists, one entry per list with its reading, Checked or Not checked, the reason where it is not checked, its edition and the time of its last check, lists_not_checked, their count, and persons_compared, the count of register persons that were compared. A list that is switched off or was not checked within the last 48 hours reads Not checked, so an empty page says only that no open or confirmed candidate exists among the register persons compared, and it says nothing while lists_not_checked is above 0. Rejected candidates are not served, and a person whom no connected register links to the book is not compared. Paged with limit (default 50, maximum 100) and offset, with the exact total. Available only in workspaces where person data is switched on; elsewhere it answers not found.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoPage size, default 50, maximum 100.
offsetNoRows to skip, default 0.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset / maximum
      Added value: +9223372036854776000
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds substantial behavioral context: candidates are review material that set no status or score, DOB/nationality contradictions remove candidates, lists switched off or unchecked within 48 hours read Not checked, and results are meaningless while lists_not_checked > 0. It also discloses the per-row field set (list, designation reference, matched_on, narrowed_on, official file link, open/confirmed status).

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and nearly every clause carries operational meaning (48-hour freshness rule, empty-page interpretation, availability gating). However, it is delivered as one very long run-on paragraph whose dense sub-clauses (row field enumeration, list metadata) slow parsing; slight trimming or restructuring would help.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates: it enumerates the returned fields, explains the lists/lists_not_checked/persons_compared structure, defines the open/confirmed and Checked/Not checked semantics, states pagination with exact totals, and accounts for availability failures. Nothing needed to call or interpret it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are documented there, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description restates limit default 50/maximum 100 and offset but adds no new syntax or edge-case semantics beyond the schema. 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?

States a precise verb (review) and resource (candidates for natural persons linked to book companies), and names the exact matching basis (name plus list aliases against six named sanctions lists). This is unmistakably distinct from siblings like screening_lookup or entity_risk_profile without opening any schema.

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?

Gives strong context: available only in workspaces where person data is on, otherwise not found; rejected candidates are not served; a person not linked to the book is not compared. It explains how to read an empty page and when lists read Not checked. It never names an alternative sibling tool, so it stops short of explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative routing.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources