Skip to main content
Glama

Sanctions Screening

by dev.hatchloop

check_compliance

Read-onlyIdempotent

Free, instant pre-flight for the compliance gate. Runs the SAME TCPA / GDPR / CASL / CAN-SPAM / 10DLC gate that send_message and call_business run — but in preview mode, so NO message is sent and NO state changes. Tells you whether a (recipient, channel, message_type, content) send would be permitted BEFORE you pay for it, and if not, names the exact rule and how to remediate. Use it to de-risk a paid send the same way check_booking_link de-risks a paid booking.

EXAMPLE USER QUERIES THAT MATCH THIS TOOL: user: "Is it legal to text this US number a 20%-off promo?" -> call check_compliance({"recipient_id": "+14045550200", "content": "20% off this week only!", "channel": "sms", "message_type": "marketing", "country_code": "US"}) user: "Before you email the dentist, make sure it's allowed" -> call check_compliance({"recipient_id": "office@dentist.example", "content": "Do you accept Cigna? Following up on my request.", "message_type": "follow_up"}) -> then send_message({"recipient": {"id_type": "email", "id_value": "office@dentist.example"}, "message_type": "follow_up", "content": {"body": "Do you accept Cigna? Following up on my request."}})

WHEN TO USE: Call this the moment before send_message or call_business when there is any chance the send is regulated — anything tagged marketing, any SMS to a US number (10DLC), any message to an EU/UK (GDPR) or Canadian (CASL) recipient, or any content you are unsure about. It is free and sub-100ms, so run it as a guard: if legal=true, proceed to send_message with confidence; if legal=false, fix the cited blocker instead of burning a paid, rejected send. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not treat a legal=true as a permanent license — the gate re-runs at send time, so a fresh opt-out between preview and send still blocks. Do not use it to check two-party voice recording consent (that is evaluated at call time in the voice adapter, not here). It is not a substitute for send_message; it never delivers anything. COST: free - no key required LATENCY: ~15ms

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
channelNoDelivery channel. Omit to auto-infer sms/email from recipient_id; set 'voice' explicitly.
contentYesThe actual message body you intend to send. The gate classifies the real text, so a meaningful preview needs the real content.
state_codeNoUS state code (e.g. 'CA') for state-specific rules.
country_codeNoISO 3166-1 alpha-2 (e.g. 'US', 'DE', 'CA'). Auto-inferred from phone if omitted; drives which jurisdiction rules apply.
message_typeNoIntent tag: transactional, marketing, reminder, follow_up, notification. 'marketing' triggers the consent checks. Defaults to transactional.transactional
recipient_idYesPhone in E.164 (e.g. '+14045550100') or email address the message would go to.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses preview mode and no state changes, sub-100ms latency, free cost, and the send-time re-check caveat. It also states what it does NOT evaluate (two-party voice recording consent), which is valuable behavioral context not available from structured fields.

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 front-loaded with the most important facts and uses clear sections (WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, COST, LATENCY). It is slightly repetitive — 'free' appears in the opening, WHEN TO USE, and COST — and the example block is long, so it does not earn a perfect conciseness score.

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?

Even with no output schema, the description conveys return semantics (legal=true/false, names the exact rule and remediation), covers when and when-not to use, cost, latency, and provides complete invocation examples. For a tool with this much regulatory complexity, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

The schema covers all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful extras: real content matters for classification, 'marketing' triggers consent checks, channel/country are auto-infered, and worked examples show exact parameter values. It is not a 5 because the per-parameter semantics are already mostly documented in the 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?

The description names a specific verb/resource: a pre-flight check against the TCPA / GDPR / CASL / CAN-SPAM / 10DLC compliance gate, with preview semantics explicitly stated. It distinguishes itself by saying 'NO message is sent and NO state changes' and enumerating the regulatory domains, which makes it recognizable against compliance-adjacent siblings like screen_sanctions.

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?

The WHEN TO USE section gives explicit triggering conditions ('anyhing tagged marketing, any SMS to a US number... any EU/UK/Canadian recipient') and a concrete workflow: run before send_message or call_business, proceed if legal, remediate if not. The WHEN NOT TO USE section provides exclusions (not a permanent license, not for recording consent, not a substitute for send_message), so an agent can route correctly.

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

All Sanctions Screening toolsInspect
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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct actions, but screen_sanctions and map_trade_restriction both screen parties against OFAC/EU/UK sanctions lists, so the same party-screening request could plausibly route to either. check_compliance also uses a broad 'compliance' name, though its messaging-specific parameters help separate it. The detailed descriptions largely mitigate the ambiguity, but the overlap is real.

Naming Consistency4/5

Seven of eight tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (check_compliance, get_status, screen_sanctions, verify_company_record). self_test breaks the pattern as a noun-style name rather than an imperative verb_noun, but it remains lowercase and readable. Overall naming is predictable and consistent.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is a well-scoped size for a compliance/screening service, and each tool has a distinct operational role. The supporting helpers (get_status, get_outcome, preview_cost, self_test) are justifiable parts of the full workflow rather than padding.

Completeness4/5

Core due-diligence workflows are covered: sanctions screening, trade-restriction mapping, company verification, and messaging-compliance pre-flight. Notable exclusions such as the UN Consolidated List, PEP/adverse media, and bulk screening are explicitly disclosed rather than hidden, so agents can work around them. The gaps are more like optional enhancements than dead ends.

Resources