Skip to main content
Glama

Compliance Check

by dev.hatchloop

screen_sanctions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Free screening of a name or entity against official sanctions lists, each fetched from the authority that issues it: the OFAC SDN list from the US Treasury (SDN.CSV plus ALT.CSV for alternate spellings), the EU consolidated financial sanctions list from the European Commission, and the UK Sanctions List from the FCDO. THE UN CONSOLIDATED LIST IS NOT SCREENED -- it carries no licence permitting commercial redistribution, so we do not claim it. ALWAYS check lists_screened on the response: it names the lists that actually ran ON THAT CALL, and a list that failed to load appears in sources_unavailable instead. reason_code is 'partial_screening' whenever any source was unavailable, never 'clear'. Returns screening_status ('hit' | 'clean' | 'candidates' | 'not_screened' -- branch on THIS, not on matched, because matched:false is also false when nothing could be screened), matched: bool, a list of matches with score, program, and source URL, and which lists were screened. Never fabricates a match or a clear -- if no match is found, explicitly names which lists were checked. Attaches a compliance_receipt: an Ed25519-signed, hash-bound record of what was checked, when, against which sources, and what it returned - verifiable OFFLINE against the public key published at https://hatchloop.dev/agents.md, so you can hand it to an auditor as evidence the check really ran.

EXAMPLE USER QUERIES THAT MATCH THIS TOOL: user: "Screen this vendor before we pay them: ACME Trading LLC, Russia" -> call screen_sanctions({"name": "ACME Trading LLC", "country": "RU", "type": "entity"}) user: "Is Kim Jong-un on the OFAC list?" -> call screen_sanctions({"name": "Kim Jong-un", "country": "KP", "type": "person"}) user: "Run a sanctions check on this person before onboarding" -> call screen_sanctions({"name": "Ivan Petrov", "country": "RU", "type": "person"}) user: "Do a compliance check -- is this company sanctioned?" -> call screen_sanctions({"name": "Mahan Air", "country": "IR", "type": "entity"})

WHEN TO USE: Use before onboarding a counterparty, processing a payment, engaging a vendor, or doing any due-diligence step that requires knowing whether a person or entity appears on official sanctions lists. Essential for agents doing business formation, vendor qualification, payments onboarding, trade compliance, or any workflow where a sanctioned counterparty is a legal or reputational risk. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use as a substitute for full KYC/AML screening -- this covers sanctions lists only, not PEP (Politically Exposed Person) databases, adverse media, or credit risk. Do not treat a negative result as a compliance clearance; it is informational only. Do not use for bulk screening of large lists -- each call is a live API query. COST: free within the daily quota, then $0.02 per call LATENCY: ~2000ms

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesFull name of the person or entity to screen, e.g. 'Kim Jong-un' or 'ACME Trading LLC'. Use the most complete name available for best accuracy.
typeNoOptional entity type hint. 'person' for individuals, 'entity' for organizations/companies. Omit to screen both.
countryNoOptional ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code or country name (e.g. 'IR', 'Iran'). It ANNOTATES AND RANKS results; it never removes any. Each EU/UK match carries country_match: true, false, or null when the listing records no country. Nothing is dropped on a mismatch, because the country we hold is the address/nationality on the listing rather than everywhere a party operates - excluding on it would return a clean screen for someone who IS listed.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. On top of that, the description discloses crucial behavioral traits: lists can fail to load and appear in sources_unavailable, reason_code becomes 'partial_screening', it never fabricates matches or clears, and it attaches an Ed25519-signed compliance_receipt. This materially exceeds what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with clear headings (WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, COST, LATENCY) and front-loaded purpose. Example queries are useful for an agent. The COST and LATENCY lines are tangential to invocation correctness, and the four examples are slightly redundant, so it loses one point.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining return values. It covers screening_status options, matched, match details (score, program, source URL), lists_screened, sources_unavailable, reason_code, and compliance_receipt. Complex failure modes and offline verification are fully explained, making the definition complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds vital meaning beyond the schema for the country parameter: it 'ANNOTATES AND RANKS results; it never removes any,' preventing the serious mistake of treating a non-matching country as a clean screen. No other dimension of any parameter is left unexplained.

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 verb ('screening') and resource ('official sanctions lists'), and explicitly names the specific lists included (OFAC, EU, UK) and the one excluded (UN). This precisely distinguishes the tool from any broader or narrower sanctions-checking sibling without needing to open schemas.

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 provides explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections, detailing appropriate scenarios (onboarding, payments, due diligence) and exclusions (not a full KYC/AML substitute, not for PEP/adverse media/credit risk, not for bulk screening). It does not name a specific sibling tool as an alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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