RESET Verifica

Screening en listas de sanciones

screening_listas

Screening de un nombre o entidad contra listas de sanciones internacionales (OFAC, UE, UK, Canada), personas expuestas politicamente (PEP de los paises con servicio: MX, BR, CO, AR, DO, CA, US) y listas nacionales (Mexico, Brasil, Colombia, Argentina, R. Dominicana). Envia 'name'; opcional 'country' (ISO, p.ej. MX) y 'tax_id' para el cruce nacional; 'certificate'=true para recibir una constancia PDF (base64). Devuelve coincidencias con puntaje 0-100 y un registro por cada lista consultada (limpia o con hits). Consume saldo (servicio SCREEN; tarifa vigente en consultar_precios). Es evidencia, no una certificacion de cumplimiento: un resultado 'sin coincidencias' no exime del deber de debida diligencia.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`tax_id`	No
`country`	No
`certificate`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`checked`	No
`country`	No
`resumen`	No
`summary`	No
`national`	No
`pep_hits`	No
`constancia`	No
`request_id`	No
`certificate`	No
`match_found`	No
`international_hits`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "screen_prepago — 2 muestra(s), 12 campos.",
+  "properties": {
+    "certificate": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {},
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Certificate"
+    },
+    "checked": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {},
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Checked"
+    },
+    "constancia": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {},
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Constancia"
+    },
+    "country": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {},
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Country"
+    },
+    "international_hits": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {},
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "International Hits"
+    },
+    "match_found": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Match Found"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Name"
+    },
+    "national": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {},
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "National"
+    },
+    "pep_hits": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {},
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Pep Hits"
+    },
+    "request_id": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Request Id"
+    },
+    "resumen": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Resumen"
+    },
+    "summary": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Summary"
+    }
+  },
+  "title": "RScreenPrepago",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: it consumes paid balance (servicio SCREEN), returns scores 0-100, produces one record per consulted list, and explicitly warns that a 'no match' result is not a compliance certification. This is substantial value-add over the structured annotation flags.

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?

The description is dense but well-structured: purpose, parameter usage, output shape, cost, and compliance caveat each get their own sentence. Every clause earns its place, and the most important operational details are front-loaded before the caveat.

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 the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is thorough: it names the lists and countries covered, explains the optional parameters, describes the return format, flags the cost, and clarifies the legal/evidentiary limitations. Nothing critical needed to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It compensates well: it explains that 'name' is the required input, 'country' is an ISO code like MX, 'tax_id' is used for national cross-checking, and 'certificate=true' returns a base64 PDF. All four parameters are given practical meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: screening a name/entity against international sanctions lists, PEP lists, and national lists, naming exact sources (OFAC, EU, UK, Canada, etc.). It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling screening_monitorear, so the agent has to infer the one-time vs. monitoring distinction.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: it tells the agent what to send, optional parameters, the fact that it consumes balance, and that the result is evidence rather than certification. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over screening_monitorear or other verification siblings, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

All RESET Verifica 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?