Tinplate Edge AI Safety, Security & EU Compliance

tinplate_sanctions_screener

Read-onlyIdempotent

Sanctions, Watchlist & Embargo Entity Screener API: Screen beneficiaries, vendors, BICs, and wallets against embargo rules and fuzzy sanctions watchlists. (Endpoint: POST /v1/sanctions-screener)

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": {
      "entity_name": "<entity_name>",
      "entity_type": "<entity_type>"
    },
    "name": "tinplate_sanctions_screener"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`entity_name`	Yes	Parameter 'entity_name' (e.g. "VTB Bank PJSC")
`entity_type`	Yes	Parameter 'entity_type' (e.g. "company")
`identifiers`	No	Structured object parameter 'identifiers'
`country_code`	No	Parameter 'country_code' (e.g. "RU")
`similarity_threshold`	No	Numeric parameter 'similarity_threshold' (e.g. 0.84)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description must add behavior beyond that. It adds that matching is fuzzy against watchlists, but says nothing about result interpretation, confidence levels, data freshness, or rate/quotas for what is effectively an external screening call. The POST endpoint hint is mildly useful but mainly a transport detail.

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?

It's a single front-loaded sentence with the endpoint in parentheses, so there's no wasted prose. The title repeated verbatim ('Sanctions, Watchlist & Embargo Entity Screener API') is slightly redundant, but it's short overall.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 5-parameter tool with a nested identifiers object and no output schema, the description leaves notable gaps: it doesn't explain what the identifiers object should contain, what similarity_threshold does, or what a screening response tells the agent. It covers purpose adequately but not the operational detail an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies; the description goes slightly beyond by calling the watchlist matching 'fuzzy', which hints at the role of similarity_threshold, and by naming BICs and wallets, which maps to the nested identifiers object. It still does not explain identifier structure or threshold tuning, so it is not a full 5.

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 names a specific verb ('Screen') and resource ('beneficiaries, vendors, BICs, and wallets against embargo rules and fuzzy sanctions watchlists'), plus the endpoint. That is enough for an agent to recognize this as a sanctions/watchlist screening tool. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but the sibling list contains nothing comparable.

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?

The listing of screenable entity types ('beneficiaries, vendors, BICs, and wallets') implies when the tool applies, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no statement of prerequisites or limits (e.g., that this is a screening signal, not a definitive determination).

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

All Tinplate Edge AI Safety, Security & EU Compliance 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?