gapup-mcp

sanctions_screener_multi

Read-only

Screening Sanctions Multi-listes — Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (RISK). Returns a structured, audited deliverable. Answers: For , run full OFAC + EU + UK HMT + UN + SECO + Canada SEMA + PEP + adverse media screening with composite risk score and evidence trail. · Is <company/individual> on any major international sanctions list? · What is the composite AML risk score for across all major watchlists? · Screen this M&A target / supplier / LP against all major sanctions lists and give me a compliance recommendation. · Is a PEP or associated with a PEP? What Enhanced Due Diligence is required? Reference case: Veridian Trading Co. LLC (Cyprus) — 7 listes · PEP check · adverse media 2 ans · composite 52/100 · escalate-to-compliance → EDD requis. Inputs are validated server-side — send the documented case fields.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`async`	No	If true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.
`address`	No
`aliases`	No
`entity_name`	Yes
`entity_type`	Yes
`context_note`	No
`date_of_birth`	No
`jurisdiction_focus`	Yes		all
`country_of_registration`	No
`adverse_media_lookback_days`	Yes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds that it returns a 'structured, audited deliverable' with evidence trail, disclosing the output nature. No contradiction with annotations. The description enhances 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately concise but includes a confusing first sentence ('Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (RISK)') and a lengthy reference case. It is structured with bullet points but could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

Given no output schema and 10 parameters, the description provides use cases, list coverage, and a reference case. However, it lacks details on output format (only mentions 'structured, audited deliverable') and does not explain optional parameters like address or aliases. Adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is only 10% (only async has description). The description mentions required fields indirectly via examples but does not explain each parameter's meaning. It adds some value by listing example inputs and mentioning validation server-side, but insufficient for full parameter semantics.

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 the tool screens entities against multiple sanctions lists, PEP, and adverse media, returning a composite risk score. It lists specific lists (OFAC, EU, UK HMT, UN, SECO, Canada SEMA) and example use cases, differentiating it from siblings like kyc_screener.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides several example questions that indicate when to use (e.g., 'Is <company/individual> on any major sanctions list?', 'Screen this M&A target...'). It also mentions a reference case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools.

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

All gapup-mcp tools Inspect

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

C2.5/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

With 271 tools, many have overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple competitor intel tools, multiple financial modelers, multiple ESG auditors). Detailed descriptions help slightly, but the sheer volume creates confusion. Agents would struggle to select the right tool among many similar options.

Naming Consistency1/5

Tool names are wildly inconsistent: mix of English and French, snake_case and short phrases, some very generic (process, run, execute equivalents). No discernible naming convention (e.g., abm_architect vs. boundary_control vs. bp_narratif). This makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

271 tools is far beyond typical well-scoped servers (3-15). This indicates an unfocused, over-bloated tool surface. Even for a general business intelligence server, this number is excessive and violates the principle of each tool earning its place.

Completeness2/5

Despite the large count, coverage feels scattered. Some domains (e.g., content, competitive intel) have many tools, while others (e.g., supply chain, HR) have gaps. The set lacks a coherent scope; it seems like a dump of many separate tool collections rather than a complete, curated surface.

Resources

Need Help?