argus-screen

Screen up to 50 names

screen_batch

Screen up to 50 names in one call against PEP, sanctions, enforcement and watchlist records; returns counts and per-name bands with top matches.

Instructions

Screen up to 50 names in one call (POST /v1/screen/batch). Each name uses one screen; a batch is all or nothing, so if the key cannot cover every name nothing is screened. Returns counts and, per name in order, the bands and top matches.

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": {
      "queries": "<queries>"
    },
    "name": "screen_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`queries`	Yes	1 to 50 names

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

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 well: it discloses the billing/credit model ('each name uses one screen'), atomic semantics ('all or nothing'), the failure outcome ('nothing is screened'), and the return shape (counts plus per-name bands and top matches in order). It omits error/status behavior when the key is short and any concurrency or rate considerations, keeping it short of full marks.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and bound, then the atomicity caveat, then the return shape. No filler and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies exactly what the schema cannot: cost semantics, atomicity, and the shape of the response. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the nested fields (name, dob, kind, country) are already richly documented, including the kind-dependent field-dropping behavior. The description only restates the 1-50 bound already encoded in minItems/maxItems, adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Screen up to 50 names in one call (POST /v1/screen/batch).' That batch framing, combined with the sibling name screen_name, makes it immediately clear which tool handles single names versus bulk work.

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?

It gives a clear trigger condition (multiple names, up to 50) and a critical operational caveat: a batch is all-or-nothing, so if the key cannot cover every name nothing is screened. It does not explicitly route single-name work to screen_name, but the 'up to 50 in one call' framing implies the split.

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

Deploy Server