Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asyncNoIf 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.
addressNo
aliasesNo
entity_nameYes
entity_typeYes
context_noteNo
date_of_birthNo
jurisdiction_focusYesall
country_of_registrationNo
adverse_media_lookback_daysYes

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) are consistent. The description adds useful behavioral details: returns a structured, audited deliverable with evidence trail and composite risk score. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is verbose, starting with a marketing tagline, and includes repetitive example questions. It could be more concise and front-loaded with essential information.

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

Completeness2/5

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 (4 required), the description lacks details on return format, error handling, and async behavior. The vague 'structured, audited deliverable' is insufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

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 tool description does not explain individual parameters or their usage. Example questions hint at purpose but don't map to parameters.

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 clearly states it screens entities against multiple sanctions lists (OFAC, EU, UK HMT, etc.) and returns a composite risk score. Example questions further clarify the purpose. However, it includes marketing fluff like "Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (RISK)" which slightly detracts.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like kyc_screener or kyc_screener_batch. The description provides example use cases but does not compare or exclude other tools.

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

All mcp-knowledge toolsInspect
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

C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially in competitive intelligence, ESG, and risk assessment. For example, there are multiple tools for competitor analysis (competitive_deep_dive, competitor_intel, competitor_moves, etc.) with unclear boundaries. Agents would struggle to select the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are a mix of English and French, and follow no consistent pattern. Some use snake_case (e.g., abm_architect, action_plan_esg), while others are verb-focused (e.g., content_catalog, fx_rate). The lack of a uniform naming convention makes it hard for agents to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 271 tools, the server is excessively large. Even for a broad knowledge domain, this number of tools makes discovery and selection inefficient. Typical coherent servers have 3-15 tools; this has an order of magnitude more, indicating poor scoping.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many domains (compliance, finance, marketing, HR, etc.), but the coverage is uneven due to redundancy. Key areas have multiple overlapping tools, while some sub-domains may still have gaps. Overall, the surface is broad but not well-curated.

Resources