io.github.atomno-mcp/mcp-sanctions

screen_inn

Screen any INN against official sanctions lists, including OFAC, EU, UK OFSI, UN, and Rosfinmonitoring, to identify matches.

Instructions

Быстрый точный скрининг по ИНН по всем поддерживаемым перечням. Тариф Pro.

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": {
      "inn": "<inn>"
    },
    "name": "screen_inn"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`inn`	Yes	ИНН физлица или юрлица (10 или 12 цифр).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds 'Тариф Pro' as an access prerequisite and 'all supported lists' as scope, which is useful context. However, it does not describe result behavior, side effects, or authorization details beyond the tariff mention.

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 very short: one sentence for the core purpose and one for the Pro tariff constraint. It is front-loaded with the action and contains minimal fluff, though 'Быстрый точный' is mildly promotional and adds little factual substance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter screening tool with an output schema, the description is nearly adequate: it specifies the input ИНН and the broad screening scope. It lacks guidance on when to use this tool instead of the sibling screen tools and does not explain what the supported lists contain, leaving some contextual ambiguity.

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?

The schema covers the sole parameter completely with a clear description of ИНН for individuals and legal entities, so the tool description need not add much. The description's 'по ИНН' merely duplicates what the schema already states, which is appropriate but adds no extra meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action, 'скрининг' (screening), on a specific resource, 'ИНН', across all supported lists, which clearly conveys the core functionality. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling screen_person/scrеen_entitу tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance is given on when to choose screen_inn over screen_erson, scrеen_entitу, or list_watchlists. The phrase 'по всем поддерживаемым перечням' implies broad coverage, but it neither names alternatives nor states exclusion criteria.

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

Deploy Server