screen_websiteScreen a website or domain across the enabled sanctions and crime lists.
lists: optional comma-separated list slugs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lists | No | ||
| website | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that the screening runs against 'enabled sanctions and crime lists', which is useful context, but it doesn't disclose output format or behavior when lists are omitted. No contraction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then a parameter note. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and the optional lists parameter. It might mention the expected format of website, but overall is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has no descriptions for the two parameters (0% coverage). The description compensates partially by explaining that `lists` is an optional comma-separated list slugs, but the required `website` parameter lacks format details (e.g., URL vs bare domain).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Screen') and the resource ('a website or domain'), with scope ('across the enabled sanctions and crime lists'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that screen other entity types (email, country, crypto, etc.).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states what the tool does (screening websites/domains) and implies it's the tool for websites, but it does not explicitly compare with siblings or state exclusions. The context is clear but no when-to-use vs alternatives is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a unique entity type: IP, country, crypto address, email, government ID, PEP, and website. The two IP-related tools (detect_vpn and geolocate_ip) are distinct in purpose and clearly named. No two tools overlap in what they screen.
The eight screen_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., screen_email, screen_website). The two IP tools (detect_vpn, geolocate_ip) use different verbs, creating minor inconsistency but still understandable given their unique actions.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for a sanctions/anti-crime screening service. Each tool addresses a distinct screening domain, and the count is neither too thin nor bloated.
The tool set covers a wide range of entity types: IPs, countries, crypto, email, government IDs, PEPs, and websites. A minor gap exists for phone numbers or other entity types, but the primary screening workflows are well-covered and usable without workarounds.