Skip to main content
Glama

Sanctions Screening

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations by revealing non-obvious behavior: a controlled item to an unrestricted destination returns reason_code 'partial' and never 'clear.' It also states that the product argument is only recorded and echoed back, never checked, and that tariff rates are never fabricated. Additional operational details like the 20-party hard refusal, free quota, and ~3000ms latency add valuable transparency.

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?

The description is long but every section earns its place: the core limitation is front-loaded in caps, return content is enumerated as (a)-(e), and usage guidance is separated into clear WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE blocks. The example queries are compact and directly illustrate valid input combinations. Despite its length, the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates the five categories of returned information, names the exact sanctions lists screened, lists covered destinations, and explicitly warns about limitations such as non-fabricated tariffs and lack of product classification. It also covers cost, latency, and hard constraints on parameters. An agent has enough context to select and call this tool correctly in realistic trade scenarios.

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 input schema already documents all parameters well. The description still adds meaningful semantic context, especially for product: 'the product argument is recorded and echoed back, never checked against any export-control list.' It also provides realistic example calls showing how product, destination_country, hs_code, origin_country, and parties combine, which helps an agent understand parameter roles beyond the schema alone.

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 action and resource: 'Free cross-border trade screening of the DESTINATION and the PARTIES.' It immediately clarifies what the tool does not do, 'IT DOES NOT CLASSIFY THE PRODUCT,' and explicitly says, 'This is not an export-control clearance,' which helps distinguish it from related compliance tools. The scope is unambiguous and grounded in concrete examples.

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?

The description contains dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections, including a clear pre-flight use case: 'Call this as a pre-flight check before quoting, invoicing, or shipping internationally.' It also gives exclusions such as 'Do NOT use as a substitute for a licensed export compliance review' and 'Do NOT use for purely domestic shipments.' This provides explicit guidance on both when and when not to invoke the tool.

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

All Sanctions Screening 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct actions, but screen_sanctions and map_trade_restriction both screen parties against OFAC/EU/UK sanctions lists, so the same party-screening request could plausibly route to either. check_compliance also uses a broad 'compliance' name, though its messaging-specific parameters help separate it. The detailed descriptions largely mitigate the ambiguity, but the overlap is real.

Naming Consistency4/5

Seven of eight tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (check_compliance, get_status, screen_sanctions, verify_company_record). self_test breaks the pattern as a noun-style name rather than an imperative verb_noun, but it remains lowercase and readable. Overall naming is predictable and consistent.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is a well-scoped size for a compliance/screening service, and each tool has a distinct operational role. The supporting helpers (get_status, get_outcome, preview_cost, self_test) are justifiable parts of the full workflow rather than padding.

Completeness4/5

Core due-diligence workflows are covered: sanctions screening, trade-restriction mapping, company verification, and messaging-compliance pre-flight. Notable exclusions such as the UN Consolidated List, PEP/adverse media, and bulk screening are explicitly disclosed rather than hidden, so agents can work around them. The gaps are more like optional enhancements than dead ends.

Resources