Screen a person or entity against global sanctions lists (OFAC SDN, UK OFSI, EU Consolidated, UN Consolidated). Returns matches with confidence scores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 10) | |
| query | Yes | Name to screen (person or entity) | |
| threshold | No | Match confidence threshold (0-1, default 0.82) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (matches with confidence scores), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only nature, rate limits, result completeness, or how threshold affects output. Adequate but with clear gaps for an unannotated tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and list coverage, followed by the return behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description steps in to state what is returned (matches with confidence scores) and which lists are consulted. It is close to complete for a 3-param lookup tool, though it could say more about threshold behavior and result limits.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so query, limit, and threshold are all documented in the schema (including defaults and the 0-1 range). The description's mention of confidence scores loosely ties to threshold but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb ("screen") and resource (person or entity against global sanctions lists) and even enumerates the exact lists checked (OFAC SDN, UK OFSI, EU Consolidated, UN Consolidated). It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from siblings check_pep and check_entity, though naming sanctions lists implicitly separates it from PEP screening.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this tool is for sanctions screening, but there is no statement of when to choose it over check_pep or check_entity, nor any exclusion criteria. For a tool sitting in a family of three screening tools, that routing guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.