Skip to main content
Glama

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. Changed1 schema field 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 OpenSanctions (40+ official lists) and OFAC SDN."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)."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the non-classification behavior, the 'partial' reason_code for controlled items, a policy never to fabricate rates/clear/restricted status, and cost/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?

Highly structured with front-loaded limitation, examples, and usage rules, but it is long and contains some redundancy (e.g., middleman unification repeated). Still every major section contributes.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Covers return categories (a)-(e), error behavior for party-list size, country coverage, and commercial conditions; with no output schema this is enough to know what will happen. It could specify exact JSON response shape, but isn't needed for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds behavioral detail (product is echoed and never classified; parties must be split if >20; destination checked against OFAC lists) and provides four concrete example invocations that map user wording to parameter values.

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?

States a specific action ('cross-border trade screening of DESTINATION and PARTIES') with a clear boundary that it does not classify product, and it distinguishes its consolidated middleman behavior from export-control/product classification. The examples reinforce the tool's role.

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?

Has labeled WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections with explicit pre-flight use, coverage list, and exclusions (licensed review, authoritative tariff rates, domestic shipments). This is the clearest possible routing guidance for an agent.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly differentiated targets (e.g., check_booking_link vs import_booking_url, get_status vs get_outcome), and the descriptions are unusually thorough. However, send_message and send_transactional_confirmation overlap because send_message already includes a 'transactional' message type, and verify_business vs verify_company_record are easy to confuse despite different scopes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 23 tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_*, get_*, send_*, verify_*), with no camelCase or stylistic drift. The verb uniformly precedes the object, making the surface predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count3/5

23 tools is on the heavy side for a single MCP server, spanning SMB communications, booking, compliance screening, trade lookup, and platform utilities. Each tool has a purpose, but the count pushes the set into the 16-25 borderline range and suggests scope creep.

Completeness3/5

Core workflows for booking, messaging, and compliance pre-flight are well covered, including async polling and cost preview. However, there are lifecycle gaps: capture_lead has no way to list/update/retrieve leads, and business records support import/verify but no update/delete. The trade/company-verification tools also feel disconnected from the main SMB flow.