Skip to main content
Glama

Screen a vessel

screen_vessel
Read-only

Screen a ship by IMO number (7 digits, with or without the "IMO" prefix) or MMSI (9 digits) across the lists that publish ship identifiers (OFAC SDN, UK, Swiss SECO, Canada, Australia, French Trésor). Exact match, ignoring each list's formatting; each match names the listed vessel. lists: optional comma-separated list slugs.

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": {
      "identifier": "<identifier>"
    },
    "name": "screen_vessel"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
listsNo
identifierYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that matching is exact and formatting-insensitive, and that each match names the listed vessel, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the core action and identifier formats, then adds matching behavior and the list parameter. The description is dense but has no redundant filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only screening tool with an output schema, it supplies identifier formats, matching rules, and list scope. Remaining gaps such as no-match handling are minor given the annotations and output schema.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It specifies IMO 7-digit and MMSI 9-digit formats and describes the optional comma-separated list slugs, naming the source lists; exact slug values are not enumerated but the meaning is otherwise clear.

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 the specific verb 'Screen' and resource 'ship', then distinguishes by identifier types IMO and MMSI and names the lists checked. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling screening tools for aircraft, names, emails, and other entities.

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?

Makes clear the tool is for vessel screening via IMO or MMSI and identifies the lists checked. It does not state when to avoid it or name a sibling alternative, but the identifier specificity supplies clear context for use.

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