Skip to main content
Glama

Sanctions Screening

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Sanctions Entry

sanctions_entry
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the full Consolidated Screening List record for one entry by its uid (from sanctions_screen results, e.g. "SDN:12345") or by OFAC entity number. Returns every field: all aliases, addresses, identity documents (passports, tax IDs, IMO numbers, crypto wallet addresses), sanction programs, license requirements, Federal Register notice, vessel details, and remarks.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uidNoEntry uid from sanctions_screen, e.g. "SDN:36318" or "EL:e123".
entity_numberNoOFAC/CSL entity number, e.g. "36318". Used if uid is not given.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "uid": "SDN:36318"
+  },
+  {
+    "entity_number": "36318"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral detail by enumerating the exact fields returned (aliases, addresses, identity documents, programs, etc.), which goes beyond annotations and helps set expectations. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose and parameters, the second lists the return fields. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return values by enumerating fields. It also explains the two input methods and their relationship to sanctions_screen. The context is complete enough for the tool's complexity, though it could mention error behavior or what happens when no entry matches.

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% with both parameters fully described. The description adds minimal extra value, such as clarifying the uid format comes from sanctions_screen results and that the two parameters are alternatives. This is a baseline 3 because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving the full Consolidated Screening List record for a single entry by uid or OFAC entity number. It distinguishes itself from the sibling sanctions_screen by specifying the input comes from sanctions_screen results and by emphasizing the full-record return. This is a specific verb+resource+scope with clear differentiation.

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?

The description implies usage context: use this after sanctions_screen to get full details for a specific entry. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the relationship to sanctions_screen is clear and the input options are described. This meets 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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

All Sanctions Screening 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are nearly identical, several prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) cover similar territory, and research/verification tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) blur together. The three sanctions tools are distinct, but the rest of the set creates frequent misselection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case, which is consistent, but the verb/noun ordering varies unpredictably (expectation vs entity_profile vs sanctions_screen vs scan_dependency). There is no dominant pattern like verb_noun, though names are readable.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server is over-scoped, especially given its narrow 'Sanctions Screening' title. Many tools are duplicative (ask_pipeworx_beta duplicates ask_pipeworx; scan_competitor_ai_presence wraps ai_visibility_check), and the bulk are unrelated to the stated purpose. The count feels bloated.

Completeness3/5

The three sanctions tools (screen, entry, lists) cover the core read-only workflow well, but the server is mislabeled: most of the 34 tools are generic data/Pipeworx features unrelated to sanctions. For the broad data domain the set is fairly complete, but for the apparent 'Sanctions Screening' purpose it is both over- and under-scoped, with no bulk screening or list management.

Resources