Skip to main content
Glama

Sanctions Screening

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Subscribe to Alerts

subscribe
Idempotent

Create a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream. Returns the new subscription id. Requires a Pipeworx OAuth account (anonymous + BYO cannot persist subscriptions). Supported types: "sec_8k" (8-K filings matching ticker + item codes — e.g. items:["5.02"] = officer change), "polymarket_edge" (Polymarket↔Kalshi cross-venue mispricings — params:{topic:"fed"}), "fred_series" (new FRED observations — params:{series_id:"UNRATE"}). Delivery channels: feed (always on — pull via recent_alerts or GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json), and optionally email (set delivery:{email:"you@x.com"}) or sms (delivery:{sms:"+15551234567"} — phone must be verified at /account first; 10/day cap).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesSubscription type.
paramsYesType-specific filter. sec_8k: {ticker:"AAPL", items?:["5.02","1.01"]}. polymarket_edge: {topic:"fed", min_spread_bps?:500}. fred_series: {series_id:"UNRATE"}. patent_grant: {applicant:"Apple Inc."}. clinical_trial: {sponsor?:"Pfizer", condition?:"lung cancer", phase?:"PHASE3"} (sponsor or condition required).
deliveryNoOptional delivery channels in addition to the always-on persistent feed. {email:"you@x.com"} sends a templated alert per fired event. {sms:"+15551234567"} sends an SMS per event — must match the verified phone on the caller's account (verify at https://pipeworx.io/account first; 10/day cap). {webhook:"https://..."} POSTs each event JSON to your endpoint, HMAC-signed — the response includes delivery.webhook_secret (whsec_…) ONCE; verify X-Pipeworx-Signature = sha256 HMAC of "<X-Pipeworx-Timestamp>.<raw body>". Auto-disabled after 10 consecutive failing runs.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as mutating and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: return of the subscription id, OAuth requirement, phone verification, 10/day SMS cap, and feed always-on behavior. It does not contradict annotations, but it stops short of disclosing all details (e.g., webhook auto-disable) which is covered in schema.

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 densely packed but front-loaded with the purpose, then auth, types, and delivery channels. Every sentence serves a purpose. It is a bit long, but the complexity of the tool (3 params, nested objects) justifies the length.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers many aspects—auth, return value, examples, channels—but it states 'Supported types' and lists only three of the five enum values, omitting patent_grant and clinical_trial. This could confuse an agent into thinking those types are unsupported. Since the schema covers them, the description is not fully complete, but it is not severely deficient.

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. The description enriches the parameters with concrete examples—e.g., items:["5.02"] = officer change, topic:"fed", series_id:"UNRATE"—and explains delivery channel constraints (email/sms) beyond the schema. However, it omits two enum types (patent_grant, clinical_trial) which the schema documents, leaving some semantics incomplete.

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 and resource: 'Create a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_subscriptions, unsubscribe, and recent_alerts. The inclusion of supported types and delivery channels further clarifies scope.

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 conveys when the tool is appropriate—for creating proactive subscriptions—and includes important exclusions like 'anonymous + BYO cannot persist subscriptions.' It also mentions pulling via recent_alerts as an alternative for feed delivery, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are nearly identical, several prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) cover similar territory, and research/verification tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) blur together. The three sanctions tools are distinct, but the rest of the set creates frequent misselection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case, which is consistent, but the verb/noun ordering varies unpredictably (expectation vs entity_profile vs sanctions_screen vs scan_dependency). There is no dominant pattern like verb_noun, though names are readable.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server is over-scoped, especially given its narrow 'Sanctions Screening' title. Many tools are duplicative (ask_pipeworx_beta duplicates ask_pipeworx; scan_competitor_ai_presence wraps ai_visibility_check), and the bulk are unrelated to the stated purpose. The count feels bloated.

Completeness3/5

The three sanctions tools (screen, entry, lists) cover the core read-only workflow well, but the server is mislabeled: most of the 34 tools are generic data/Pipeworx features unrelated to sanctions. For the broad data domain the set is fairly complete, but for the apparent 'Sanctions Screening' purpose it is both over- and under-scoped, with no bulk screening or list management.

Resources