Reg Monitoring

Search enforcement actions

regmonitoring_search_enforcement

Read-onlyIdempotent

Enforcement actions across regulators and jurisdictions, with structured penalty data where it has been parsed: entity penalised, amount, currency, breach categories, and whether the penalty is final. Use for "what has this regulator fined firms for", "has this firm been penalised", or precedent research on a breach type. IMPORTANT: only about a quarter of enforcement records have a parsed penalty amount — extraction requires full source text, which many records lack. Do NOT answer "what are the largest fines" from sort=largest_penalty alone: it ranks only the parsed subset. Check the note field, which reports how many actions were excluded. Amounts are never converted between currencies.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "regmonitoring_search_enforcement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sort`	No	Default "newest". "largest_penalty" excludes records with no amount.
`limit`	No	Default 20, max 100.
`entity`	No	Case-insensitive substring of the penalised firm or individual name.
`offset`	No
`currency`	No	ISO code, e.g. "GBP", "USD", "EUR".
`final_only`	No	Only penalties recorded as final, excluding proposed or under appeal.
`regulators`	No	Lowercase regulator codes.
`min_penalty`	No	Minimum penalty amount, in the currency of the record — amounts are NOT converted between currencies, so combine this with `currency` if you need comparable figures.
`jurisdictions`	No	Lowercase jurisdiction codes.
`published_after`	No	YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive.
`published_before`	No	YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive.
`with_penalty_amount_only`	No	Only records carrying a structured penalty amount. IMPORTANT: this is a small minority of enforcement records — most enforcement actions are indexed without a parsed figure. Leaving this false returns the full enforcement picture; setting it true returns only what is quantified.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/idempotent, so the description carries real weight and does: it discloses that only ~25% of records have parsed amounts, that the `note` field reports excluded counts, and that amounts are never currency-converted. It doesn't describe pagination behaviour or result ordering beyond the sort enum, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then use cases, then caveats, with zero filler sentences. The parsed-amount caveat is touched three times (quarter of records, sort bias, no currency conversion); each mention is distinct but the repetition is slightly heavier than necessary.

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?

Twelve optional parameters and no output schema would normally demand more, but the description covers the two failure modes an agent would hit (assuming complete penalty coverage, assuming currency comparability) and points at the `note` field for verification. Nothing essential to correct invocation 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 92%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning the schema alone lacks: the ranking bias of sort=largest_penalty and the fact that min_penalty must be paired with currency for comparability. It does not restate individual parameters, which is correct given the rich schema.

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 (enforcement actions across regulators and jurisdictions) plus the structured penalty fields returned. The domain is clearly separable from siblings like search_updates, get_stats, and get_monthly_briefing.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit sample questions it answers ("what has this regulator fined firms for", precedent research) and an explicit prohibition: do NOT answer "largest fines" from sort=largest_penalty alone. That is a when-to-use and a when-not-to-use in one pass.

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

All Reg Monitoring 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?