Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

kyc_screener

Read-only

Screening KYC / AML / Sanctions — Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (RISK). Returns a structured, audited deliverable. Reference case: Q4 2026 onboarding — 8 entités (UBO chain LLC + SPV offshore), sanctions/PEP/adverse media. Inputs are validated server-side — send the documented case fields.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asyncNoIf true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.
entitiesYes
riskAppetiteYesstandard
screeningScopeYes
onboardingPacketYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed10 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / entities / items
      Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "entityType": {
+      "enum": [
+        "LLC",
+        "Ltd",
+        "SA",
+        "SAS",
+        "GmbH",
+        "BV",
+        "LP",
+        "Trust",
+        "SPV",
+        "Foundation",
+        "individual",
+        "other"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "incorporationDate": {
+      "maxLength": 50,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "jurisdiction": {
+      "maxLength": 100,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "legalName": {
+      "maxLength": 200,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "notes": {
+      "maxLength": 300,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "registrationNumber": {
+      "maxLength": 100,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "uboNames": {
+      "items": {
+        "maxLength": 150,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "legalName",
+    "entityType",
+    "jurisdiction"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / entities / maxItems
      Added value: +20
    • addedInput schema / properties / entities / minItems
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / onboardingPacket / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "accountType": {
+    "enum": [
+      "corporate-banking",
+      "private-banking",
+      "fund-admin",
+      "broker-dealer",
+      "payment-institution",
+      "other"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "jurisdiction": {
+    "maxLength": 100,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "requestId": {
+    "maxLength": 100,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "submittedAt": {
+    "maxLength": 50,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "submittedBy": {
+    "maxLength": 150,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / onboardingPacket / required
      Added value: +[
+  "accountType",
+  "jurisdiction"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / riskAppetite / default
      Added value: +"standard"
    • addedInput schema / properties / riskAppetite / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "conservative",
+  "standard",
+  "liberal"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / screeningScope / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "adverseMedia": {
+    "default": true,
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "includeRelatedParties": {
+    "default": true,
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "pep": {
+    "default": true,
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "sanctions": {
+    "default": true,
+    "type": "boolean"
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / screeningScope / required
      Added value: +[
+  "sanctions",
+  "pep",
+  "adverseMedia",
+  "includeRelatedParties"
+]
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "onboardingPacket",
+  "entities",
+  "screeningScope",
+  "riskAppetite"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds that it returns a structured, audited deliverable and validates inputs server-side, providing some behavioral context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately concise but includes a marketing-like phrase ('Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (RISK)') that adds noise. The reference case is useful but could be more streamlined.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, many parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, result details, or how to interpret the 'structured, audited deliverable', leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 20%; the description does not explain any parameter meanings. The phrase 'send the documented case fields' is too vague to compensate for the low coverage, leaving agents without necessary contextual guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it screens KYC/AML/Sanctions and returns a structured, audited deliverable. The core function is unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from related siblings like 'kyc_screener_batch' or 'sanctions_screener_multi'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description lacks context for selection, such as when to choose 'kyc_screener' vs. 'kyc_screener_batch' or 'sanctions_screener_multi'.

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

All mcp-knowledge 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

C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially in competitive intelligence, ESG, and risk assessment. For example, there are multiple tools for competitor analysis (competitive_deep_dive, competitor_intel, competitor_moves, etc.) with unclear boundaries. Agents would struggle to select the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are a mix of English and French, and follow no consistent pattern. Some use snake_case (e.g., abm_architect, action_plan_esg), while others are verb-focused (e.g., content_catalog, fx_rate). The lack of a uniform naming convention makes it hard for agents to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 271 tools, the server is excessively large. Even for a broad knowledge domain, this number of tools makes discovery and selection inefficient. Typical coherent servers have 3-15 tools; this has an order of magnitude more, indicating poor scoping.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many domains (compliance, finance, marketing, HR, etc.), but the coverage is uneven due to redundancy. Key areas have multiple overlapping tools, while some sub-domains may still have gaps. Overall, the surface is broad but not well-curated.

Resources