Plumbline: OFAC SDN sanctions screening, SEC financials and company checks from public registries

Describe a need to Plumbline in words

interpret_requirement

Give Plumbline the buyer's requirement, or a correction or addition to it, in their own words: it is read into a structured requirement (each value says which words it came from), conflicting or unclear facts come back as one question, and words not yet read are kept as written. Pass the requirement (id, token) from the first answer to continue it. Nothing is sent or ordered: send_requirement sends it when the buyer says so. When you already have the fields in structured form, use submit_request instead.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "utterance": "<utterance>"
    },
    "name": "interpret_requirement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	The service, from list_propositions
`turn_id`	No	Your id for this message: a retry with the same id is applied once
`timezone`	No	The buyer's IANA time zone, for reading dates
`utterance`	Yes	The buyer's words, as written
`requirement`	No	The requirement to continue

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say the call is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive; the description supplies the substance: values are traced to source words, conflicts and unclear facts return as a single question, unread words are preserved verbatim, and nothing is actually sent or ordered. That last point is essential because readOnlyHint=false leaves the mutation scope ambiguous.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and keeps routing information at the end, with no filler sentences. The opening sentence is long and carries several packed clauses, including a parenthetical, which slightly reduces scannability but is not 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 must explain what comes back, and it does: a structured requirement, one consolidated question for conflicts, and preserved unread text. Combined with the continuation rule for the nested requirement object, an agent has everything needed to call it and handle the response.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: the requirement object is how a conversation is continued, with id and token coming from the first answer. It also clarifies that utterance is the buyer's words as written, which explains why submit_request exists as an alternative.

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: give the buyer's requirement in their own words, and it is read into a structured requirement with provenance. It distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings by naming both send_requirement (sending) and submit_request (already-structured fields).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit when-to-use (free-form words, corrections, additions), when-not-to-use (already have structured fields, so use submit_request), and when to move on (send_requirement once the buyer says so). It also states the continuation rule: pass the requirement id and token from the first answer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Plumbline: OFAC SDN sanctions screening, SEC financials and company checks from public registries tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?