Check if a contractor is actively debarred or suspended on the federal SAM.gov Excluded Parties List System (EPLS).
Crucial for public contracts, infrastructure, and enterprise B2B compliance.
Args:
entity_name: Official business or entity name to evaluate against federal sanctions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data source (federal EPLS), which is useful, but says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, name-matching behavior, or what a hit/miss means for the caller.
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?
Front-loads the core action and source in the first sentence, then adds a brief value statement and one arg line. No filler, though the value statement is somewhat promotional rather than operational.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is adequately described. However, for a name-based sanctions lookup, the description omits disambiguation caveats (legal-name matching, false positives) that an agent needs to interpret results correctly.
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 coverage is 0% and the only parameter is documented solely as "Entity Name" in the schema. The description compensates by specifying it should be the "official business or entity name" evaluated against federal sanctions, which adds real meaning over the bare schema title.
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?
States a specific verb (check) and resource (federal debarment/suspension status) and names the authoritative source, SAM.gov EPLS. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like verify_license or audit_osha_safety, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.
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?
"Crucial for public contracts, infrastructure, and enterprise B2B compliance" implies the usage context but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and names no alternative sibling tool for related compliance checks.
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.