Batch Sanctions Screening

batch_sanctions_screen

Re-screen a whole customer, supplier or payee list against sanctions and US export-control lists in one call. Up to 100 names vs OFAC, EU and UK lists (UN via EU/UK) and optionally the US Consolidated Screening List. Per name: no_match, possible_match, confirmed_match or unable_to_determine with confidence, sources and top matches. Name-only matching: review every match. Use for onboarding backlogs or periodic re-screening. $0.50 per batch of up to 100 names, 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": {
      "names": "<names>"
    },
    "name": "batch_sanctions_screen"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`names`	Yes	Names to screen (max 100)
`min_score`	No	Default 0.88
`matches_per_name`	No	Default 3
`payment_signature`	No	x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value. Omit to receive payment requirements.
`include_export_control`	No	Default true

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

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 per-name outcome states (no_match/possible_match/confirmed_match/unable_to_determine), the name-only matching limitation ('review every match'), and payment mechanics ($0.50/batch, USDC on Base, omit payment_signature to get requirements). It omits latency/turnaround and any rate-limit behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 scope, then return semantics, then usage, then cost — a logical order with essentially no filler. It runs five sentences and the payment sentence could arguably sit earlier, but every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description steps in to describe per-name return shape (status, confidence, sources, top matches) and the payment handshake, which covers the call contract. Minor gaps remain around execution time and failure/partial-batch behavior.

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 description coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning beyond it: it confirms the 100-name cap, notes that include_export_control pulls the US Consolidated Screening List, and ties payment_signature to the x402 flow. It does not explain min_score or matches_per_name behavior in prose.

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 (re-screen a customer/supplier/payee list against sanctions and US export-control lists) plus exact scope (up to 100 names, OFAC/EU/UK, optional US CSL). An agent immediately knows what the tool does and its boundaries.

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?

Explicitly names when to use it: 'Use for onboarding backlogs or periodic re-screening,' which is concrete context. No siblings exist to contrast against and no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Batch Sanctions Screening 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?