Supplier Check (VAT, EORI, Company, Sanctions, Export)

supplier_check

Check a new supplier before onboarding or paying it, in one call: EU VAT validity (VIES), EU EORI validity, company identification (GLEIF, Norway registry) and sanctions + US export-control screening (OFAC, EU, UK, US CSL). Returns per-check status and sources, a screening_signal (not a compliance approval) and review_required. If a source fails: 503, not charged. Use when onboarding or paying a new supplier. $0.25 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": "supplier_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lei`	No	20-character LEI
`vat`	No	EU VAT number with country prefix
`eori`	No	EU EORI number
`name`	Yes	Supplier company name
`country`	No	ISO2 country
`payment_signature`	No	x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value. Omit to receive payment requirements.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses cost ($0.25 per call, USDC on Base via x402), the payment/settlement mechanism, the failure contract ('If a source fails: 503, not charged'), and the return shape (per-check status, sources, screening_signal, review_required). It also pre-empts a likely misread by labeling screening_signal 'not a compliance approval', which is exactly the kind of semantic guardrail an agent needs before acting on the result.

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?

Four dense sentences with the capability, the coverage list, the return contract, the failure mode, and the trigger condition all front-loaded before the pricing tail. Every clause carries information; nothing is restated from the schema or title.

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?

For a six-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates on every axis that matters: what is checked, what comes back, what the result does and does not mean, how failures are billed, and how payment works. An agent can call this correctly and interpret the response without further context.

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 goes beyond it by mapping identifier families to named sources (VAT→VIES, EORI→EORI, LEI→GLEIF, name/country→company identification), which helps an agent decide which inputs to supply. It does not state that only `name` is required or what happens to individual checks when optional identifiers are omitted, leaving the most consequential parameter question unanswered.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Check a new supplier') plus the exact coverage envelope: VIES VAT, EORI, GLEIF/Norway registry identification, and OFAC/EU/UK/US CSL sanctions and export-control screening. 'In one call' also establishes the aggregation value proposition, so an agent knows this replaces five separate lookups.

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?

It states the trigger condition twice and unambiguously: 'before onboarding or paying it' and 'Use when onboarding or paying a new supplier.' No when-not guidance or alternatives are given, but there are no sibling tools to route away from, so the practical gap is small.

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

All Supplier Check (VAT, EORI, Company, Sanctions, Export) 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?