Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AICTIONBOT™ Werkbank

by com.kulicadvisory
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Screen a company or person against public sanctions lists

screen_sanctions
Read-onlyIdempotent

AICTIONBOT™ supplier check by KULIC Advisory. Screens a name against the consolidated public sanctions lists of the EU, the UN, the US (OFAC SDN and non-SDN) and the UK, refreshed daily. Fuzzy matching on normalised name tokens, legal forms ignored. Returns possible matches with list, type, programme and similarity, and the list dates. A similar name is no proof, no hit is no clearance; this does not replace a legal sanctions screening. Deterministic, no AI, nothing is stored.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "screen_sanctions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesCompany or person name to screen, e.g. as on the invoice or in the supplier master.
languageNoLanguage of the answer. Default de.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behaviour, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: daily list refresh, fuzzy matching on normalised tokens with legal forms ignored, deterministic non-AI processing, and that nothing is stored. It also names the returned fields (list, type, programme, similarity, list dates), so the agent knows exactly what the output means.

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?

Dense but well front-loaded: purpose, coverage, matching method, output, then caveats. The opening branding ('AICTIONBOT™ supplier check by KULIC Advisory') is promotional filler that does not help tool selection, but the rest of every sentence earns its place.

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?

With only two parameters and no output schema, the description fills the important gaps: it explains data sources and freshness, matching behaviour, the shape of returned matches, and the interpretive limits of a hit or non-hit. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this safely is missing.

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 parameter definitions already carry the burden. The description still adds meaning by explaining how the name is processed — normalised tokens with legal forms ignored — which tells the agent what variations of a company name are acceptable input, and it clarifies that results come with per-list similarity scores.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — screening a name against the consolidated EU, UN, US (OFAC SDN and non-SDN) and UK sanctions lists — plus the scope of coverage. No sibling performs anything comparable, so no disambiguation is needed, and an agent can tell precisely what it gets.

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?

Frames the tool as a 'supplier check' and warns that a similar name is not proof and no hit is not clearance, which effectively tells the agent not to treat the result as a legal clearance. It does not spell out triggering situations (onboarding, invoice approval) or point to any alternative tool, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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

All AICTIONBOT™ Werkbank toolsInspect
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