Rubric Protocol MCP Server

screen_entity

Screen an entity or individual against OFAC, UN, UK, EU, and BIS sanctions and export-control lists, returning per-list results plus a signed, Hedera-anchored audit attestation.

Instructions

PAID ($0.01 USDC): sanctions and export-control screening across OFAC SDN + Consolidated, UN, UK OFSI, EU, and BIS lists (76K+ entries). Returns per-list results plus a signed, Hedera-anchored attestation - audit evidence you screened, against which list versions, and what it said. Requires RUBRIC_WALLET_KEY.

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": "screen_entity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	entity or individual name
`query_id`	No	optional caller reference echoed into evidence

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.4Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

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 substantial work: it discloses the $0.01 USDC charge, the required RUBRIC_WALLET_KEY credential, and that the return includes a signed Hedera-anchored attestation tied to list versions. Gaps remain on matching semantics (exact vs fuzzy), behavior on zero matches, and error/payment-failure handling.

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?

Two sentences, both fully loaded: cost and scope are front-loaded, then the return shape and auth requirement. No filler, no repetition of the schema, and every clause contributes new information.

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 the return (per-list results plus a signed attestation with list versions), which is the key thing an agent needs. It stops short of explaining match scoring or the shape of the attestation payload, but for a 2-parameter read-style screening call this is close to complete.

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%, so both parameters (name, query_id) are already documented in the schema, including that query_id is echoed into evidence. The description adds no syntax, formatting, or normalization guidance for the name beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('sanctions and export-control screening' of an entity) and enumerates the exact list coverage (OFAC SDN + Consolidated, UN, UK OFSI, EU, BIS, 76K+ entries). None of the sibling tools (attest, verify, get_proof, framework_detect) do screening, so the agent can tell this apart by domain alone without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The purpose strongly implies when to call it (you have a name and need a sanctions/export-control check), and the description flags the paid and wallet-key prerequisites. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative path, and says nothing about whether this is a pre-flight check versus a compliance record lookup.

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

Deploy Server