Sanctionlistcheck.com

Screen Names

screen_names

Sanctions screening of 1 to 100 names against 10 official lists. The response includes a record id, the snapshot version, the data-as-of date for each source list, and the matching engine version. Each screened name costs one credit. Hits are candidates for human review and require further assessment.

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": {
      "names": "<names>"
    },
    "name": "screen_names"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`names`	Yes	A list of 1 to 100 names to be screened.
`threshold`	No	An optional minimum score from 0.6 to 1; only hits at or above this score are returned.
`idempotency_key`	No	An optional key to prevent duplicate screenings. A retry with the same key within 24 hours returns the stored record and charges no credits.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real value beyond the annotations: per-name credit cost, the fact that a persistent record and snapshot/engine versions are produced, and the crucial caveat that hits are candidates requiring human assessment rather than confirmed matches. It stops short of explaining the optional idempotency/retry behavior (which lives only in the schema) and doesn't reconcile the non-readOnly, non-idempotent annotations with that retry path.

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?

Four tight sentences with the core operation and scope front-loaded, followed by return shape, cost, and the human-review caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the return-field sentence partially duplicates the existing output schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so the description didn't need to enumerate return fields, but it does so helpfully anyway. Combined with the cost model and the human-review caveat, an agent has enough to call this correctly; the main gap is the absence of guidance on the optional threshold and idempotency_key.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents names, threshold, and idempotency_key thoroughly. The description adds only the 1-to-100 cardinality (already in the schema) and the '10 official lists' context, saying nothing about threshold or idempotency_key semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('sanctions screening of names') plus concrete scope (1 to 100 names against 10 official lists). This is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools (get_balance, get_record, list_sources), so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the description of what the tool does, and the credit cost plus the 'hits are candidates for human review' caveat hint at when the tool is appropriate. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites (e.g. when to prefer get_record for an already-screened name).

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

All Sanctionlistcheck.com 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?