anchain-data-mcp

Official

by AnChainAI

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

screen_ip_address

Screen IP addresses to analyze geolocation and sanctions status for compliance checks.

Instructions

Analyze IP geolocation data and sanctions status to support regional compliance checks.

Args: ip_address: IP address to screen (IPv4 format, e.g. 1.2.3.4)

Cost: 5 credits

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": {
      "ip_address": "<ip_address>"
    },
    "name": "screen_ip_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip_address`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Analyze' implying a read-only operation and mentions a fixed cost of 5 credits, but does not disclose data sources, limitations, or any side effects. The output schema covers return values, but operational behavior is not detailed.

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 brief and front-loads the purpose, with a clear parameter definition and cost note. Every sentence earns its place, with no unnecessary 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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, parameter format, and cost. It lacks explicit alternative guidance but is adequate for basic usage.

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?

The description adds format and example for ip_address ('IPv4 format, e.g. 1.2.3.4'), which is not present in the schema (0% coverage). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions and provides clear guidance on the expected value.

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 'Analyze IP geolocation data and sanctions status', identifying the specific resource (IP address) and purpose (regional compliance). It distinguishes from sibling tools that screen crypto addresses (e.g., screen_ofac_address) by focusing on IP addresses.

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 provides context ('to support regional compliance checks') but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It offers enough context for an agent to infer its use case, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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