Skip to main content
Glama
Siemssen-Consulting-GmbH

mcp-easycompliance

Official

Check name and add to daily monitoring

check_and_add_to_monitoring

Screen a name against EU/US sanctions or PEP lists, then automatically add it to daily monitoring for ongoing re-screening and hit alerts.

Instructions

Screens the name like check_sanctions_list/check_pep_list AND adds it to easycompliance's DAILY monitoring list: from then on the name is re-screened every day and new hits are reported to the account (persistent side effect; each monitored name counts towards the account's monitoring quota). Use duplicate_by="ref" with a non-empty ref to distinguish different partners that share the same name. Each call – including retries – is a separate billable API request that counts towards the account's API quota, even when duplicate detection prevents a second monitoring entry. COMPLIANCE: The tool result is the authoritative source. Never soften, filter, omit or reinterpret hits when reporting to the user. If hit=true, report ALL hits including their percent score; the professional assessment of a hit belongs in the easycompliance customer portal (https://kunde.easycompliance.de, Monitoring → Hits), not in this conversation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoYour own reference, e.g. a customer, supplier or employee number
listYesWhich easycompliance list to use: "sanctions" (EU/US/HADDEX sanctions lists) or "pep" (politically exposed persons)
nameYesName of the person or organization to screen and monitor (UTF-8)
accuracyNoSearch accuracy between 50 and 100 (percent). If not set, the search pattern configured for the easycompliance account is used.
duplicate_byNoWhether an entry is considered a duplicate by its name (default) or by its reference. "ref" requires a non-empty ref.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hitYestrue if the screening produced at least one potential match
refYesThe reference that was sent along, empty if none
hitsYesFull match records from the API, each including a "percent" match score
nameYesThe screened name (as sent to the API)
hitCountYesNumber of potential matches
Behavior5/5

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

The description thoroughly discloses side effects: persistent monitoring, daily re-screening, quota impact, billable API requests even on duplicates, and compliance reporting obligations. This goes far beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by adding operational and financial context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every sentence carries critical information: purpose, side effect, quota, billing, and compliance. It is front-loaded with the main action and structured logically, though it could be tightened without losing essential details.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers all necessary operational aspects: what the tool does, persistent effects, cost implications, duplicate handling, and compliance requirements. The description fully prepares an agent to invoke the tool safely and appropriately.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics beyond schema by explaining how duplicate_by interacts with the 'ref' parameter ('Use duplicate_by="ref" with a non-empty ref to distinguish different partners that share the same name') and clarifies that accuracy defaults to the account configuration. This elevates the parameter understanding.

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 dual function: 'Screens the name like check_sanctions_list/check_pep_list AND adds it to easycompliance's DAILY monitoring list.' This distinguishes it from the sibling check tools and remove_from_monitoring, with a specific verb+resource+effect.

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 when to use this tool (ongoing monitoring) versus one-off checks via check_sanctions_list/check_pep_list, and gives explicit guidance for duplicate_by='ref' to distinguish same-name partners. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this tool when you need ongoing monitoring' or list exclusions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Siemssen-Consulting-GmbH/mcp-easycompliance'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server