SiteCheck Company Records

EU counterparty check in one call: screens a person

gov_eu_compliance_pack

Read-only

EU counterparty check in one call: screens a person or company name against the official EU Consolidated Financial Sanctions List (all aliases, word match, accents ignored) and, with a VAT number, validates it in VIES (valid flag, registered name and address where shared). Returns matched entities with EU reference, programme, regulation and link. A hit is a lead to review, not a legal determination. Related tools on this server, for a different need: gov_eu_funding_tenders when you need EU Funding & Tenders Portal search results for a keyword. Price: $0.004 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "gov_eu_compliance_pack"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`vat`	No	Optional EU VAT number with country prefix, e.g. IE6388047V, DE129273398
`name`	Yes	Person or company name to screen, e.g. Al Rashid Trust
`limit`	No	Max sanctioned entities returned, 1-25 (default 10)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vat`	No
`name`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`sanctions`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: alias matching, word matching, accent normalization, what fields a match returns, the critical caveat that a hit is a lead to review rather than a legal determination, and the exact billing model ($0.004 USDC via x402, failures uncharged). The cost and charge condition are exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then results, then the legal caveat, then the related-tool pointer, then pricing — a sensible priority order. It is dense, with parenthetical lists that could be trimmed, but every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

Covers the screening source, match semantics, dual VIES path, return contents, legal interpretation limits, sibling routing, and cost — everything an agent needs to decide and call correctly. An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to enumerate return values, and it still summarizes them usefully.

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 100%, so the three parameters are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description does add real meaning for 'vat' (it triggers a second VIES validation and returns a valid flag, registered name and address) and clarifies 'name' accepts a person or company, but 'limit' is left entirely to the 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?

States a specific verb and resource — screens a person or company name against the EU Consolidated Financial Sanctions List — plus the secondary VIES VAT validation path. It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling in the list, none of which do sanctions screening.

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?

Explains the conditional behavior: supply a VAT number to also get VIES validation, omit it for name-only screening. It also names gov_eu_funding_tenders and marks it as 'for a different need', which prevents conflating sanctions screening with tender search. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., non-EU jurisdictions or PEP screening).

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

All SiteCheck Company Records 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?