Skip to main content
Glama

map_trade_restriction

Read-onlyIdempotent

Free cross-border trade screening of the DESTINATION and the PARTIES. IT DOES NOT CLASSIFY THE PRODUCT: the product argument is recorded and echoed back, never checked against any export-control list, so a controlled item to an unrestricted destination returns no findings and reason_code 'partial' -- never 'clear'. This is not an export-control clearance; classify the item (HS/ECCN) against BIS/EU/UK controls yourself. Given a product and destination country (and optionally an HS code, origin country, and a list of parties to screen), returns: (a) whether the destination or any party hits an export-control or sanctions restriction, (b) the destination risk level (comprehensive_embargo / sectoral_sanctions / elevated_scrutiny / standard), (c) HS code hint if the caller provided one, (d) honest tariff guidance + official links without fabricated rates, and (e) party sanctions screening against OFAC SDN (US Treasury), the EU Consolidated list (European Commission) and the UK Sanctions List (FCDO). Acts as a MIDDLEMAN -- unifies the OFAC comprehensive-embargo map, our own indexed copies of the EU and UK lists, and OFAC SDN into one clean call. Never fabricates a tariff rate, a clear, or a restricted status.

EXAMPLE USER QUERIES THAT MATCH THIS TOOL: user: "Can we ship laptops to Iran?" -> call map_trade_restriction({"product": "laptop computers", "destination_country": "IR"}) user: "Screen this supplier before we import from them: Mahan Air, Iran" -> call map_trade_restriction({"product": "aircraft parts", "destination_country": "US", "parties": ["Mahan Air"]}) user: "Is exporting hydraulic pumps to Russia restricted?" -> call map_trade_restriction({"product": "hydraulic pumps", "hs_code": "8413.50", "destination_country": "RU"}) user: "Check if we can sell medical devices to Germany, supplier is ACME GmbH" -> call map_trade_restriction({"product": "medical devices", "origin_country": "US", "destination_country": "DE", "parties": ["ACME GmbH"]})

WHEN TO USE: Use before any cross-border trade to flag embargoed destinations, screen exporters/importers/freight forwarders against sanctions lists, and get authoritative links to the applicable tariff databases. Call this as a pre-flight check before quoting, invoicing, or shipping internationally. Covers OFAC comprehensively-embargoed countries (Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Syria) and significant advisory countries (Russia, Belarus, Ukraine Crimea/DNR/LNR regions). WHEN NOT TO USE: Do NOT use as a substitute for a licensed export compliance review. Do NOT use to obtain authoritative tariff rates (this tool returns guidance links, never fabricated rates). Do NOT use for purely domestic shipments where no cross-border movement is involved. COST: free within the daily quota, then $0.02 per call LATENCY: ~3000ms

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hs_codeNoOptional Harmonized System code (e.g. '8471.30' for laptops). If provided, echoed back and included in tariff guidance. Not derived -- caller must supply the official HS code.
partiesNoOptional list of party names to screen (exporter, importer, freight forwarder, end-user, etc.). Each name is screened against OFAC SDN (US Treasury), the EU Consolidated list (European Commission) and the UK Sanctions List (FCDO).
productYesProduct name or description, e.g. 'laptop computers', 'crude oil', 'medical devices'. Used in the tariff guidance note.
origin_countryNoOptional ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code for the exporting country (e.g. 'US', 'DE'). Used in the tariff guidance note.
destination_countryYesISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code for the importing country (e.g. 'IR', 'CA', 'DE'). Required. Checked against the OFAC comprehensive-embargo map and sectoral-sanctions advisory list.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: it will echo back the product without checking it, never returns 'clear' for controlled items, never fabricates rates, and acts as a middleman unifying OFAC, EU, and UK lists. It also discloses cost and latency, which is useful operational behavior.

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 long, but the critical limitation ('IT DOES NOT CLASSIFY THE PRODUCT') is front-loaded, and every block — examples, when-to-use, when-not-to-use, cost, latency — carries decision-relevant information. It is more verbose than minimal, but the density of valuable guidance justifies the length.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the five categories of returned information, including the meaning of reason_code 'partial', risk levels, HS hint, tariff guidance, and party screening sources. It also covers cost, latency, and coverage of specific countries. Nothing critical to invoking this tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema: product is 'recorded and echoed back, never checked', hs_code is 'echoed back' and 'not derived', origin_country is used in the tariff guidance note, and parties are screened against three named lists. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions and compensates for the absence of an output 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 uses a specific verb ('screens', 'returns') and clearly identifies the resource: cross-border trade screening of destination and parties against export-control and sanctions lists. It immediately distinguishes itself by stating what it does NOT do ('IT DOES NOT CLASSIFY THE PRODUCT'), which separates it from the sibling screen_sanctions and from export-control classification 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?

Explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections prescribe pre-flight screening before quoting or shipping, and explicitly exclude licensed compliance review, authoritative tariff rate retrieval, and domestic-only shipments. This gives clear routing guidance with no ambiguity about alternatives.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose with detailed descriptions and explicit WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE guidance. Potential overlaps like send_message vs. send_transactional_confirmation are well-differentiated by idempotency and use case, and compliance tools (check_compliance, screen_sanctions, map_trade_restriction) operate on different scopes without ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use lowercase snake_case and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (call_business, check_quota, find_business, send_message, verify_company_record). Even less standard verbs like lookup, map, and mint follow the same structural convention, and there are no mixed casing styles or inconsistent naming patterns.

Tool Count4/5

With 23 tools, this is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the breadth of the server's purpose—covering communication, scheduling, compliance, trade screening, and operational utilities—justifies the count. Each tool addresses a distinct capability area, and the set is not bloated with redundant or trivial functions.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of the broker's domain: business discovery, booking (check, import, schedule), communication (send, receive, read), compliance (pre-flight checks, sanctions, trade restrictions, company verification), and operational support (quota, health, cost preview, key minting, async status/outcome). There are no obvious dead ends or missing critical operations for the stated purpose.