Stipple — Document Verification & Extraction

Screen for adverse media and sanctions

screen_adverse_media

Read-only

Screen a person or organisation for ADVERSE MEDIA and SANCTIONS exposure (KYC/AML). PEP lists are not screened: sanctions.flags.pep is always false and sanctions.note says so.

USE THIS WHEN onboarding or due-diligence asks: does this subject appear in negative news
(fraud, money laundering, bribery, sanctions, trafficking, enforcement action), or on a
sanctions list? Pairs naturally after verify_identity.

Identify the subject ONE of two ways: pass `name` (plus any of `dob` as YYYY-MM-DD, `country`,
`aliases`, `employer`, `role` — these sharpen matching and cut same-name false positives), OR
pass an identity document via `url`/`bytes_b64` (+`filename`) and the subject is read from it.

Returns `{subject, sanctions{...}, adverse_media{...}, risk_flag, headline, limitations}`:
sanctions candidates are corroboration-gated (a name-only hit is `possible`, NEVER confirmed —
one common name matches several different people); media hits are entity-disambiguated and
classified, with same-name articles surfaced under `excluded`. This is screening COVERAGE, not a
determination — a hit means "review this", not "guilty"; "nothing found" is not a clean record.
Stateless — nothing is stored.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`dob`	No
`url`	No
`name`	No
`role`	No
`aliases`	No
`country`	No
`employer`	No
`filename`	No	document.pdf
`bytes_b64`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedJun 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses key behavioral traits: statelessness ('Stateless — nothing is stored'), corroboration-gating for sanctions hits ('a name-only hit is `possible`, NEVER confirmed'), entity disambiguation for media, and the interpretive caveat that a hit means 'review this', not 'guilty'. This is rich, non-obvious context that materially affects how an agent should use the results.

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 longer than average, but it is organized into clear functional sections: purpose, when to use, identification methods, and result interpretation. Every sentence carries substantive guidance or a caveat; nothing is filler.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description adds valuable interpretation of the return shape and its limitations, such as corroboration-gating, `excluded` same-name articles, and the non-determinative nature of screening. For a tool with 9 optional parameters and dual identification modes, the description covers the key decision points an agent needs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains all 9 parameters: the name-based identification path with 'dob', 'country', 'aliases', 'employer', and 'role' as matching sharpeners, and the document-based path via 'url'/'bytes_b64' plus 'filename'. It also adds format guidance ('dob as YYYY-MM-DD') and explains the matching benefits.

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 uses a specific verb ('Screen') and a clear resource (person or organisation) for 'ADVERSE MEDIA and SANCTIONS exposure (KYC/AML)'. It also explicitly states what is NOT included (PEP lists), distinguishing the tool's scope from a generic screening tool.

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 explicit trigger conditions: 'USE THIS WHEN onboarding or due-diligence asks: does this subject appear in negative news... or on a sanctions list?' and notes it 'Pairs naturally after verify_identity'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for correct routing.

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

All Stipple — Document Verification & Extraction 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.