Skip to main content
Glama

Sanctions Screening

by dev.hatchloop

self_test

Read-onlyIdempotent

Service health probe: runs 6 internal checks and reports how many passed. Confirms the server is up and responding - it does NOT probe each tool individually. Use to verify connectivity before production use.

EXAMPLE USER QUERIES THAT MATCH THIS TOOL: user: "Run a health check before I send the broadcast" -> call self_test({})

WHEN TO USE: Use at agent startup, before high-stakes task sequences, or after receiving unexpected errors to check if the service is degraded. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not call more than once per minute in production. COST: free - no key required LATENCY: ~200ms

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context: it runs 6 internal checks, does not probe individual tools, has ~200ms latency, and requires no key. The rate-limit caution also adds operational transparency beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections, front-loads the core purpose, and every part adds value. It is slightly longer than minimal but each section earns its place with operational guidance.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, when not to use it, and operational characteristics. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is little for the description to clarify. The example call self_test({}) reinforces that no arguments are needed, which is sufficient.

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 clearly states that self_test is a service health probe that runs 6 internal checks and reports how many passed. It explicitly distinguishes itself from per-tool probes, which helps an agent differentiate it from sibling health-adjacent tools.

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?

Provides explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE guidance, including startup, pre-high-stakes checks, and unexpected errors, plus a clear rate-limit warning. The example user query also demonstrates a realistic invocation scenario.

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