Jithox EU Counterparty Sanctions Preflight

Screen a counterparty name

screen_sanctioned_name

Read-only

Screen a counterparty name against a dated snapshot of the official EU Consolidated Financial Sanctions List. Returns ranked CANDIDATE designations with deterministic match scores, or 'clear'/'needs_review'/'possible_match'/'match'; no snapshot → 'unavailable'. Never a false clear on outage or fuzzy input. Screening evidence only; not a legal/compliance determination, not a clearance. A 'clear' is not a guarantee of non-designation — snapshot-scoped. Every result carries source, publication date, checksum and retrieval time.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Counterparty name to screen (test/non-production data).
`country`	No	Optional ISO alpha-2 country to narrow.
`subjectType`	No	Optional narrowing to a person or an entity.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`billing`	Yes
`product`	Yes
`receipt`	Yes
`decision`	Yes
`retryable`	Yes
`capability`	Yes
`provenance`	Yes
`generatedAt`	Yes
`limitations`	Yes
`schemaVersion`	Yes
`receiptEnvelope`	No
`decisionCategory`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive, but description adds substantial behavioral detail: deterministic match scores, 'unavailable' on missing snapshot, 'never a false clear on outage or fuzzy input', and result metadata (source, publication date, checksum, retrieval time). No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is front-loaded with core action and returns, then caveats. Every sentence contributes behavioral or scoping information—no fluff or repetition. Length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given full schema, rich annotations, and output schema, description covers return categories, failure mode, legal scope, and result metadata. It fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so description adds little beyond what schema already states. It does not provide format or syntax specifics beyond schema, justifying baseline 3.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'screen' with resource 'counterparty name against a dated snapshot of the official EU Consolidated Financial Sanctions List'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling screen_sanctioned_identifier by specifying name-based screening.

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?

Provides clear context: screening evidence only, not a legal/compliance determination, snapshot-scoped, and behavior on outages. Does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the caveats make intended usage unambiguous.

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

All Jithox EU Counterparty Sanctions Preflight tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action: screening by name, screening by identifier, retrieving listing details, enumerating regimes, and preparing receipts. No overlap in purpose or input/output types.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use consistent snake_case verb_noun naming. Retrieval tools use get_/list_ appropriately, screening tools use screen_, and the receipt tool uses prepare_. The two screening tools share a clear sub-pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for the sanctions preflight domain, covering the full workflow without redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the complete preflight workflow: screen by name or identifier, retrieve full listing details for a candidate, enumerate sanctions regimes, and generate a signed receipt. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?