Japan Public Ledgers MCP

sanctions_screen_entity

Screen an entity name against public consolidated sanctions lists (OFAC SDN / UN / EU), fetched at request time. Returns scored fuzzy matches with programs and countries. Informational only, not legal advice. Read-only; price 0.0 (free).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Entity / person / vessel name to screen
`limit`	No	Max matches to return
`types`	No	Restrict to sanction subject types.
`minScore`	No	Minimum match score 0-100 (default heuristic threshold)

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, free (price 0.0), and uses fuzzy matching with scores. It does not mention rate limits, caching behavior, or what happens if the entity is not found. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. It covers the main purpose, data sources, output type, and disclaimers without unnecessary fluff. Could be slightly improved by listing the supported sanction types inline.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides reasonable context. It explains the sources, return nature, and pricing. However, it lacks details about error handling, response structure, or rate limits, which would be helpful for complete understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it mentions 'scored fuzzy matches' which relates to minScore, but it does not elaborate on the other parameters (limit, types) beyond what the schema already defines.

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 clearly states the tool screens an entity name against public consolidated sanctions lists (OFAC SDN / UN / EU) and returns scored fuzzy matches. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sanctions_screen_by_country or sanctions_screen_list_programs by specifying the scope (entity names) and the output (scored matches with programs/countries).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description mentions 'Informational only, not legal advice' and that it is read-only and free, giving some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sanctions_screen_by_country or sanctions_screen_check_address, nor does it provide explicit prerequisites or caveats about data freshness beyond 'fetched at request time'.

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

All Japan Public Ledgers MCP 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

B3/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially the ledger-watch groups with domain prefixes. However, there are near-duplicate utilities such as content_authenticity_domain_reputation and domain_intel_reputation, and fx_tax_convert overlaps with price_oracle_fx_rate/convert. The sheer number of tools also increases the chance of selecting the wrong one, though descriptions are generally clear.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is largely consistent with a <domain>_<action> or <domain>_<watch>_<action> pattern, and all names use snake_case. Minor deviations include standalone names like entity_search, kyb_report, verify_receipt, and the confusing singular/plural pair of sanction_watch_* and sanctions_screen_*. Overall, the pattern is predictable.

Tool Count1/5

With 172 tools, this server is far beyond the typical well-scoped range. It bundles dozens of unrelated utility domains (weather, carbon, CVE, geo, etc.) alongside the Japan public-ledger watches, making it unwieldy for an agent to navigate. This extreme count is a major coherence problem.

Completeness4/5

For the core Japan public-ledger domain, coverage is excellent: each ledger has search, get, timeline, recent_changes, and verify_ledger, plus cross-ledger entity_search and temporal_query. The unrelated utility areas are also fairly complete for their own purposes, but the server's scope is so broad that some utilities are duplicated (e.g., multiple currency converters). Overall, no critical dead ends in the main domain.

Resources

Need Help?