Tensorust Ontology

Screen purchase lines against banned-vendor lists

exposure_screen_purchases

Read-only

Score up to 2,000 vendor payment or purchase-order lines (vendor, description, amount, date YYYY-MM-DD, award number, funding source) against the DoD 1260H, Section 889, FCC Covered, UFLPA and BIOSECURE lists as they stood on each line's date. Resolves resellers by product name (DNBSEQ flow cells, DJI Mavic/Matrice, Hikvision DS-2CD, TP-Link Omada). Each hit gets per-rule status (Section 889 grants ban, American Security Drone Act sec. 1825, BIOSECURE grace, UFLPA import presumption, Section 805 for DoD funds) and, when the award number is in the ledger, the award's own paper evidence. Pass institution (name or UEI) to list the ledger awards with papers naming a vendor but no matching line. Nothing is stored. Free.

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": {
      "lines": "<lines>"
    },
    "name": "exposure_screen_purchases"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lines`	Yes
`institution`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations it discloses a hard 2,000-line cap, point-in-time list semantics ('as they stood on each line's date'), what each hit contains (per-rule status, award paper evidence), that nothing is persisted, and that the call is free. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before committing a large batch.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the batch size and the resource come first, then enrichment behavior, then the alternate institution mode. Every clause carries information, though the middle sentence listing per-rule status codes is packed tightly enough to slow reading.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing returns — per-rule status, award paper evidence, and the unmatched-award listing — and adds cap, cost, and statelessness. What's missing is modest: latency/batch expectations and what happens to malformed lines or unscreenable dates.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the load and mostly does: it enumerates the line fields (vendor, description, amount, date YYYY-MM-DD, award, funding source) and explains the 'institution' parameter accepts a name or UEI. The one gap is the mapping ambiguity between the schema's 'federal' key and the description's 'funding source', which an agent may have to guess at.

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 — 'Score up to 2,000 vendor payment or purchase-order lines' — and names the exact watchlists (DoD 1260H, Section 889, FCC Covered, UFLPA, BIOSECURE) plus the reseller-resolution behavior. An agent can tell this is line-level screening, not an award- or institution-level exposure lookup, 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 only implied: you submit payment/PO lines to be screened, and you pass 'institution' to get a different mode (unmatched ledger awards). No explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no mention of the near-sibling road_screen_purchase or of exposure_awards/exposure_summary as alternatives. The institution sentence is really parameter behavior, not tool selection guidance.

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

All Tensorust Ontology 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?