entity-screen
Server Details
Screen a business or person for exclusions, debarment, and sanctions (SAM.gov, OFAC).
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: resolve_entity focuses on identity resolution and cross-walking identifiers, while screen_entity performs risk screening and compliance checks. No functional overlap.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (resolve_entity, screen_entity) using snake_case, making it easy for an agent to infer the action and target.
With only 2 tools, the server is narrowly scoped to entity resolution and screening. This is reasonable for a focused purpose, though slightly minimal for broader use cases.
The tool surface covers the core workflow: resolve identity then screen for risk. Missing potentially useful tools like update or manage entities, but the core tasks are adequately covered.
Available Tools
2 toolsresolve_entityAInspect
Resolve a real-world entity across regulated datasets and return its canonical identity plus all linked identifiers (ticker, CIK, UEI, DUNS, NPI). Use to cross-walk a name to its federal/SEC/health identifiers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Entity name or ticker |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool's behavior (resolving entities and returning identifiers) but does not disclose safety characteristics (e.g., read-only) or permissions needed. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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?
Given the simple input (one parameter) and no output schema, the description adequately covers expectations: input as name/ticker and output as canonical identity plus linked identifiers. It lacks details on response format or error handling, but this is acceptable for a straightforward tool.
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?
The input schema describes the parameter as 'Entity name or ticker' with 100% coverage. The tool description adds meaningful context by explaining what happens with that input (resolves across datasets, returns identifiers), thus adding value beyond the schema.
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 states the verb 'resolve' and resource 'entity', and lists specific identifier types (ticker, CIK, etc.). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'screen_entity', leaving some ambiguity.
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 implies a use case ('cross-walk a name to its federal/SEC/health identifiers') but does not provide when-not to use or alternatives. With a sibling tool present, explicit guidance would be beneficial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
screen_entityAInspect
Screen a company/provider/vendor/counterparty for risk before onboarding. Resolves the entity across SEC, USAspending, NPI, NIH and FDA, then checks federal exclusion lists (OIG LEIE, SAM.gov), FDA enforcement/recalls, and absence signals (stopped filing, lapsed activity). Returns a risk score plus sourced, neutral evidence with links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Legal/business name or ticker of the entity to screen |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It details the resolution across databases and checks of exclusion lists, plus output (risk score, evidence). It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a screening tool, this is sufficient.
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?
The description is a single paragraph conveying all necessary information efficiently. It is front-loaded with the main action and provides specific sources and outputs without fluff.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the screening process and expected outputs (risk score, evidence with links). It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or returns.
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?
The single parameter 'name' is documented in the schema, and the description adds 'ticker' as an acceptable input, providing extra flexibility. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value beyond the basic definition.
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 states it screens entities for risk, listing specific databases (SEC, USAspending, NPI, NIH, FDA) and exclusion lists. It distinguishes from sibling 'resolve_entity' by focusing on risk assessment.
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 specifies 'before onboarding' as the use case. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other scenarios, the context implies pre-onboarding risk checks. No direct comparison to sibling is given, but the purpose is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!