Skip to main content
Glama

SanctionScreen

by io.sanctionsscreen
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

enrich_company

Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve a company domain or legal name to structured company facts via the free public GLEIF LEI registry.

Inputs: {domain? e.g. "apple.com", name? e.g. "Apple Inc.", request_id? (idempotency)}. At least one of domain/name is required.

v1 boundaries (returned honestly, never invented):

  • GLEIF has no domain index: domain-only lookups are best-effort (registrable-name candidates are tried). Provide the legal company name for reliable resolution.

  • GLEIF does not publish industry, industry_code, size_band, or employee_range: those come back null, each with a sources[] entry documenting the gap.

  • founded is the legal-entity creation date (GLEIF publishes no true founding date).

  • Unresolvable input -> tool error with code UNRESOLVABLE.

Output: {company_id, legal_name, domain, industry, industry_code, size_band, employee_range, hq: {country, city}, founded, sources: [{field, source, url}], confidence, generated_at}.

EXAMPLE 1: Input: {"domain": "apple.com", "request_id": "demo-e1"} Output: {"company_id": "cs_co_...", "legal_name": "Apple Inc.", "domain": "apple.com", "industry": null, "industry_code": null, "size_band": null, "employee_range": null, "hq": {"country": "US", "city": "Cupertino"}, "founded": "1980-12-12", "sources": [{"field": "legal_name", "source": "GLEIF LEI (api.gleif.org)", "url": "https://api.gleif.org/api/v1/lei-records/..."}, {"field": "industry", "source": "GLEIF LEI — field not published by GLEIF (null by design in v1)", "url": "https://api.gleif.org/api/v1/lei-records/..."}], "confidence": "high", "generated_at": "2026-09-26T...Z"}

EXAMPLE 2 — unresolvable: Input: {"name": "Nonexistent Widgets Pty Ltd ZZ"} Tool error: {"code": "UNRESOLVABLE", "message": "No GLEIF LEI record matched ..."}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoLegal company name, e.g. "Apple Inc.". Reliable path.
domainNoCompany domain, e.g. "apple.com". Best-effort in v1 (GLEIF has no domain index).
request_idNoClient idempotency key; safe retries.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavior: GLEIF has no domain index, several fields are null by design with sources[] documenting gaps, 'founded' is the creation date, and unresolvable input returns an UNRESOLVABLE error. This is exemplary transparency about boundaries and failure modes.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose, clear bulleted boundaries, an output field list, and two concrete examples. Every section earns its place, and the examples significantly help an agent predict behavior.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully documents the return shape, error behavior, field nullability, and source provenance. It covers everything an agent needs to invoke and interpret the tool correctly, including idempotency and best-effort semantics.

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%, and the description adds value by clarifying the anyOf requirement ('At least one of domain/name is required'), explaining request_id as an idempotency key, and giving concrete examples. It mostly reinforces the schema but adds example-level clarity.

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 a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('a company domain or legal name') to 'structured company facts' via the GLEIF LEI registry. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from its sibling 'screen_counterparty'.

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 gives clear usage context: domain-only lookups are best-effort, and the legal name should be provided for reliable resolution. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses the full exclusion guidance.

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

All SanctionScreen toolsInspect
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