PEP Screening (Politically Exposed Persons)

screen_pep

Check whether a person is a politically exposed person (PEP) during KYC/AML onboarding. Screens a name (optional country, birth year) against public offices in Wikidata (CC0). Returns no_match, possible_match, confirmed_match or unable_to_determine with confidence, sources, coverage_limitations and candidates with offices held. Not complete PEP coverage; no relatives or associates. Use when onboarding a customer, director or beneficial owner. $0.02 per call, USDC on Base (x402).

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": "screen_pep"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Full name of the person to screen
`limit`	No	Max candidates (default 5)
`country`	No	ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country, e.g. DE
`birth_year`	No	Birth year to disambiguate
`payment_signature`	No	x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value. Omit to receive payment requirements.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the four possible outcome verdicts, the accompanying fields (confidence, sources, coverage_limitations, candidates with offices held), the underlying data source and license (Wikidata, CC0), and the commercial model ($0.02 per call, USDC on Base via x402). What it does not cover is latency, rate limits, or failure/error behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose before limitations, cost, and usage context. Every sentence adds distinct information (capability, return values, coverage caveats, trigger, price) with no padding or repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the return verdicts and result fields, plus coverage limitations and pricing. Together with a fully described input schema, an agent has enough to call this correctly and interpret the response.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters and the baseline is 3. The description only restates that country and birth year are optional disambiguators and says nothing about 'limit' or the payment_signature negotiation flow beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Check whether a person is a politically exposed person (PEP)') and immediately anchors it to the KYC/AML onboarding context. The screening inputs (name, optional country and birth year) are named, so an agent knows exactly what operation this performs without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit triggering context ('Use when onboarding a customer, director or beneficial owner') and explicit exclusions ('Not complete PEP coverage; no relatives or associates'), which tells the agent when this tool is insufficient. No sibling alternatives exist, so nothing further is required.

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

All PEP Screening (Politically Exposed Persons) 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?