Gangway AIS

Sanctions check

sanctions_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Whether a vessel's IMO number is on the public sanctions lists we read (the US OFAC SDN list, the UK Sanctions List, the EU vessel lists and Australia's sanctioned vessels), with what each list says of her. Matched by IMO number only: information, not a compliance determination. Credits: 1. Needs a paid plan: Data API Plus, Pro or Scale, or a paid Watch plan (https://gangwayais.com/#pricing).

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": {
      "imo": "<imo>"
    },
    "name": "sanctions_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`imo`	Yes	The vessel's IMO number, seven digits with a valid check digit

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), the description discloses which underlying data sources are queried, the matching limitation (IMO only), the non-authoritative nature of the result, a cost of 1 credit, and an entitlement requirement with a link. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by limitations, cost, and entitlements — every clause carries information. The opening clause is slightly convoluted, but nothing is redundant.

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, yet the description indicates what comes back ('with what each list says of her'), plus source coverage, matching constraints, cost, and plan gating. For a single-parameter read tool this leaves nothing an agent needs unanswered.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter's format and bounds are already documented. The description still adds meaning by emphasizing that matching is by IMO number only, which tells the agent that name/flag lookups are not supported here.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('whether a vessel's IMO number is on the public sanctions lists'), names the four source lists explicitly, and states the matching key ('Matched by IMO number only'). No sibling tool covers sanctions screening, and the scope is unambiguous.

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?

The intended use is clear from the phrasing and the caveat that this is 'information, not a compliance determination' sets expectations about how results should be treated. It also states the credit cost and required plan tiers. It stops short of explicit when-not/alternative guidance, but no sibling performs a comparable function.

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

All Gangway AIS 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?