Screen a company, healthcare entity, or individual against OFAC SDN sanctions, HHS OIG LEIE exclusions, SAM federal debarment, and EPA ECHO enforcement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Entity or individual name to screen | |
| country | No | Optional ISO country code (default US) | |
| entity_name | No | Alias for q (entity or individual name) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only lists the data sources covered. It says nothing about match thresholds, fuzzy vs exact matching, result ordering, rate limits, or what a hit versus a clean result means.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and the covered lists come first and nothing is padded.
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?
No output schema and no annotations mean the description should explain the shape of screening results, but it does not. It also omits that at least one name field (q or entity_name) must be supplied despite zero required parameters, and it never distinguishes the tool from its overlapping sibling.
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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the q/entity_name alias relationship or the country default beyond what the schema states.
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?
Specific verb ('Screen') plus a concrete resource (company, healthcare entity, or individual) and an enumeration of the four screening lists (OFAC SDN, HHS OIG LEIE, SAM, EPA ECHO). An agent immediately knows what is being checked, though the description never contrasts itself with the near-identical sibling 'screen_sanctions_exclusions'.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing between this tool and the sibling screen_sanctions_exclusions, which apparently overlaps in sanctions/exclusions screening. The agent must guess which of the two to call.
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.