Skip to main content
Glama
Viventine-Space

orbit-sentinel-mcp

by Viventine-Space
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

search_screening

Read-only

Check entities against consolidated sanctions / export-control screening lists (OFAC SDN, BIS Entity List, ITAR Debarred, etc.). Filter by entity, name, list source, or minimum match similarity. Use for compliance / due-diligence questions.

Instructions

Check entities against consolidated sanctions / export-control screening lists (OFAC SDN, BIS Entity List, ITAR Debarred, etc.). Filter by entity, name, list source, or minimum match similarity. Use for compliance / due-diligence questions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
listNoSubstring match on screening list source (e.g. SDN, Entity List, ITAR)
nameNoSubstring match on entity or matched name
limitNoMax rows returned (default 50, max 500). The response total is the full match count regardless of limit; rows cannot be paged, so answer counting questions from total. Output keeps the rows that fit in about 40 KB and says how many it left out
entity_idNoFilter by resolved entity UUID
min_similarityNoMinimum match similarity 0-1 (e.g. 0.9)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Max results (default 50, max 500)"New value: +"Max rows returned (default 50, max 500). The response total is the full match count regardless of limit; rows cannot be paged, so answer counting questions from total. Output keeps the rows that fit in about 40 KB and says how many it left out"
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds useful scope disclosure by naming the concrete screening lists covered, but says nothing about how matches are scored/returned or any limits on the screening data beyond what the limit param covers.

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, zero filler. The screening scope and covered lists come first, then the filters, then the intended use case — well front-loaded for an agent scanning candidates.

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 read-only lookup tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is being checked and why. It omits the shape of a result (matched entity, similarity value, list attribution), which the schema only partially hints at via 'matched name'.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters, including the min_similarity range and the limit behavior. The description only restates the filter dimensions ('entity, name, list source, or minimum match similarity') at the same level of detail as the schema.

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+resource ('Check entities against consolidated sanctions / export-control screening lists') and enumerates the actual sources (OFAC SDN, BIS Entity List, ITAR Debarred). This cleanly distinguishes it from the generic sibling search_entities, which covers the broader entity dataset.

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?

'Use for compliance / due-diligence questions' gives a clear context of use. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g. use search_entities for non-sanctions lookups), so nothing routes the agent away from this tool when it is the wrong one.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools