Skip to main content
Glama

check_sanctions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Sanctions screening of a name, for whether a person or company is on a sanctions list — and which one. Reads OFAC SDN, the UN consolidated list, the EU Financial Sanctions File and the UK Sanctions List, and returns listed, mismatch, not_found or unknown. The answer names the lists that were consulted with each one's retrieval date (and the UK list's own report date); a list that was not consulted is named as not consulted, and unknown is the answer when we cannot tell. A near name is never reported as the same party, and a listed verdict stands even when another list was not consulted. Not advice, not a legal determination. Comes with an Ed25519-signed receipt covering the question, the verdict, the sources and the time, checkable offline against the published key at /.well-known/factstamp-issuer.json — so the check itself can be audited later by someone who was not here.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoOptional: whether the name is a company or a person. A similar name across the person/entity line is a different party.
nameYesThe person or company name to screen, as it is published on the list or in your document.
countryNoOptional country to break ties. A listed country that disagrees with the one you give is a mismatch, never a match.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses verdict semantics ('listed', 'mismatch', 'not_found', 'unknown'), the rule that near names are never conflated, that unconsulted lists are named as such, that a listed verdict stands regardless of missing lists, and that an Ed25519-signed, offline-verifiable receipt is produced. This is unusually rich operational context.

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?

The verdict and source lists are front-loaded, and every statement is substantive. However, it is delivered as a few very long em-dash-chained sentences, and the receipt sentence could be tightened, so it is dense rather than wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so fully: the verdict vocabulary, the per-list consulted status with retrieval and report dates, and the signed receipt/audit path. An agent knows what it will get back.

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 schema already documents name, kind and country with their own semantics. The description reinforces the person/entity distinction ('a near name is never reported as the same party') but adds no syntax, format or default details beyond the schema, so 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 and resource ('Sanctions screening of a name'), enumerates the exact lists read (OFAC SDN, UN consolidated, EU FSF, UK Sanctions List) and the four possible verdicts. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like check_entity or check_vat without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the purpose — screen a person or company name for sanctions exposure — but the description never says when to prefer this over check_entity, check_document or check_figure, nor states any prerequisites or exclusions. The 'not advice, not a legal determination' caveat is a disclaimer, not routing guidance.

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