Skip to main content
Glama

Compliance Check

by dev.hatchloop

map_trade_restriction

Read-onlyIdempotent

Free cross-border trade screening of the DESTINATION and the PARTIES. IT DOES NOT CLASSIFY THE PRODUCT: the product argument is recorded and echoed back, never checked against any export-control list, so a controlled item to an unrestricted destination returns no findings and reason_code 'partial' -- never 'clear'. This is not an export-control clearance; classify the item (HS/ECCN) against BIS/EU/UK controls yourself. Given a product and destination country (and optionally an HS code, origin country, and a list of parties to screen), returns: (a) whether the destination or any party hits an export-control or sanctions restriction, (b) the destination risk level (comprehensive_embargo / sectoral_sanctions / elevated_scrutiny / standard), (c) HS code hint if the caller provided one, (d) honest tariff guidance + official links without fabricated rates, and (e) party sanctions screening against OFAC SDN (US Treasury), the EU Consolidated list (European Commission) and the UK Sanctions List (FCDO). Acts as a MIDDLEMAN -- unifies the OFAC comprehensive-embargo map, our own indexed copies of the EU and UK lists, and OFAC SDN into one clean call. Never fabricates a tariff rate, a clear, or a restricted status.

EXAMPLE USER QUERIES THAT MATCH THIS TOOL: user: "Can we ship laptops to Iran?" -> call map_trade_restriction({"product": "laptop computers", "destination_country": "IR"}) user: "Screen this supplier before we import from them: Mahan Air, Iran" -> call map_trade_restriction({"product": "aircraft parts", "destination_country": "US", "parties": ["Mahan Air"]}) user: "Is exporting hydraulic pumps to Russia restricted?" -> call map_trade_restriction({"product": "hydraulic pumps", "hs_code": "8413.50", "destination_country": "RU"}) user: "Check if we can sell medical devices to Germany, supplier is ACME GmbH" -> call map_trade_restriction({"product": "medical devices", "origin_country": "US", "destination_country": "DE", "parties": ["ACME GmbH"]})

WHEN TO USE: Use before any cross-border trade to flag embargoed destinations, screen exporters/importers/freight forwarders against sanctions lists, and get authoritative links to the applicable tariff databases. Call this as a pre-flight check before quoting, invoicing, or shipping internationally. Covers OFAC comprehensively-embargoed countries (Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Syria) and significant advisory countries (Russia, Belarus, Ukraine Crimea/DNR/LNR regions). WHEN NOT TO USE: Do NOT use as a substitute for a licensed export compliance review. Do NOT use to obtain authoritative tariff rates (this tool returns guidance links, never fabricated rates). Do NOT use for purely domestic shipments where no cross-border movement is involved. COST: free within the daily quota, then $0.02 per call LATENCY: ~3000ms

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hs_codeNoOptional Harmonized System code (e.g. '8471.30' for laptops). If provided, echoed back and included in tariff guidance. Not derived -- caller must supply the official HS code.
partiesNoOptional list of party names to screen (exporter, importer, freight forwarder, end-user, etc.). Each name is screened against OFAC SDN (US Treasury), the EU Consolidated list (European Commission) and the UK Sanctions List (FCDO). At most 20 parties per call - a longer list is refused outright (bad_input) rather than partially screened; split it across calls.
productYesProduct name or description, e.g. 'laptop computers', 'crude oil', 'medical devices'. Used in the tariff guidance note.
origin_countryNoOptional ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code for the exporting country (e.g. 'US', 'DE'). Used in the tariff guidance note.
destination_countryYesISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code for the importing country (e.g. 'IR', 'CA', 'DE'). Required. Checked against the OFAC comprehensive-embargo map and sectoral-sanctions advisory list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / parties / description
      Previous value: -"Optional list of party names to screen (exporter, importer, freight forwarder, end-user, etc.). Each name is screened against OFAC SDN (US Treasury), the EU Consolidated list (European Commission) and the UK Sanctions List (FCDO)."New value: +"Optional list of party names to screen (exporter, importer, freight forwarder, end-user, etc.). Each name is screened against OFAC SDN (US Treasury), the EU Consolidated list (European Commission) and the UK Sanctions List (FCDO). At most 20 parties per call - a longer list is refused outright (bad_input) rather than partially screened; split it across calls."
    • addedInput schema / properties / parties / maxItems
      Added value: +20
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the product parameter is only echoed, never checked; the tool never fabricates tariffs, clears, or restricted statuses; >20 parties triggers bad_input; and it unifies OFAC, EU, and UK lists. It also discloses cost and latency. No contradiction with annotations.

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 section (caveat, examples, when to use/not, cost/latency) earns its place and the critical limitation is front-loaded in uppercase. Minor redundancy in repeated 'never fabricates/not clearance' phrasing keeps it from a 5.

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 no output schema, the description still enumerates the five categories of returned information, specifies the three sanctions-list sources, states the 20-party limit and bad_input behavior, and gives usage examples plus operational cost/latency. For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema, this is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description earns a point above baseline by clarifying the product parameter's actual role (recorded and echoed, never checked against an export-control list), which the schema does not convey, and by showing realistic parameter combinations via example queries.

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 pairing ('screening of the DESTINATION and the PARTIES') and immediately states the critical scope boundary: it does not classify the product and is not an export-control clearance. It also clarifies that controlled items to unrestricted destinations yield reason_code 'partial', which distinguishes this from both general compliance tools and party-only screening. This is more than enough to tell it apart from its siblings without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections tell the agent to invoke before cross-border trade as a pre-flight check and explicitly exclude use as a licensed compliance review, for authoritative tariff rates, or for domestic shipments. No inference is required.

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

All Compliance Check toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct compliance subdomains: messaging compliance, sanctions screening, trade restrictions, company verification, and cost preview. The main overlap is between map_trade_restriction and screen_sanctions, since both screen parties against sanctions lists, but their descriptions differentiate trade-level screening from dedicated name screening well enough.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names mostly follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: check_compliance, get_outcome, get_status, preview_cost, screen_sanctions, verify_company_record. self_test is the one minor deviation since it reads more like a noun than an imperative verb_object name, but it does not break the overall pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is a well-scoped size for a compliance pre-flight server. Each tool has a distinct role, and the count is neither bloated nor too thin for the apparent domain.

Completeness4/5

The core compliance workflows are covered: messaging pre-flight checks, sanctions screening, cross-border trade restrictions, company registry verification, and cost/status helpers. The main gaps are intentional exclusions like PEP screening, export-control product classification, and consent management, which are documented but prevent the set from being a fully comprehensive compliance suite.

Resources