A
licenseA
qualityB
maintenanceEnables sanctions and watchlist screening of persons and entities against public lists such as Rosfinmonitoring, OFAC SDN, EU consolidated, UK OFSI, and UN Security Council from any MCP client.
5
MIT
Jithox EU Counterparty Sanctions Preflight
by com.jithox
Server Details
Read-only EU counterparty sanctions preflight over MCP: screen names & identifiers, evidence
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
5 toolsget_sanctions_listingGet an official listing detailARead-onlyInspect
Return the full official listing detail (names, programme, legal basis, listing date, identifier types, countries) for a candidate logicalId surfaced by a prior screen, with provenance. 'found' / 'not_found' / 'unavailable'. Screening evidence only; not a legal/compliance determination, not a clearance. Every result carries source, publication date, checksum and retrieval time.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| logicalId | No | The listing's logicalId (from a prior screen candidate). |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| billing | Yes | |
| product | Yes | |
| receipt | Yes | |
| decision | Yes | |
| retryable | Yes | |
| capability | Yes | |
| provenance | Yes | |
| generatedAt | Yes | |
| limitations | Yes | |
| schemaVersion | Yes | |
| receiptEnvelope | No | |
| decisionCategory | Yes |
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: possible result statuses ('found' / 'not_found' / 'unavailable') and that every result carries source, publication date, checksum, and retrieval time. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not cover auth or rate limits.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every clause adds value: field list, targeted use case, result statuses, provenance, and disclaimers. There is no filler or repetition.
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?
Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description provides sufficient context: what input to use, what the output includes, and the limitations of the result. A minor gap is that it does not mention behavior when logicalId is missing, but that is likely addressed by the schema and the 'surfaced by a prior screen' hint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter logicalId, whose description already explains it comes from a prior screen candidate. The tool description repeats this notion but adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool returns the full official listing detail for a candidate logicalId, enumerating the fields (names, programme, legal basis, listing date, identifier types, countries). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on retrieval of an official listing for a prior-screened entity, but does not explicitly name alternative tools.
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 states the intended use: retrieving detail 'for a candidate logicalId surfaced by a prior screen', which ties it to the screening workflow. It also provides exclusions: 'Screening evidence only; not a legal/compliance determination, not a clearance.' However, no explicit alternative tools are named for when not to use this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_sanctions_regimesList EU sanctions regimesARead-onlyInspect
Enumerate the EU sanctions programmes/regimes present in the snapshot (regulation/legal basis, since date, subject count) — the policy-layer read. 'found' / 'unavailable'. Reference only, not legal advice. Every result carries source, publication date, checksum and retrieval time.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| billing | Yes | |
| product | Yes | |
| receipt | Yes | |
| decision | Yes | |
| retryable | Yes | |
| capability | Yes | |
| provenance | Yes | |
| generatedAt | Yes | |
| limitations | Yes | |
| schemaVersion | Yes | |
| receiptEnvelope | No | |
| decisionCategory | Yes |
TDQS
A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the tool returns 'found'/'unavailable' statuses, and every result carries source, publication date, checksum, and retrieval time. It also adds the caveat 'Reference only, not legal advice', which goes beyond structured annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds value: the enumeration scope, the status values, the legal caveat, and the result provenance. No fluff or redundancy.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only enumeration tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, scope, statuses, and result guarantees. It is contextually complete given the tool's simplicity and the existing annotations/output schema.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema leaves no ambiguity. The description compensates by clarifying what each result includes (regulation/legal basis, since date, subject count, provenance metadata), even though it does not need to explain parameters.
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 uses a specific verb 'Enumerate' and names the resource 'EU sanctions programmes/regimes' with explicit detail (regulation/legal basis, since date, subject count). It distinguishes itself from sibling screening tools by labeling this the 'policy-layer read', clearly identifying its 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 communicates clear context: it is a policy-layer read, reference-only, not legal advice, and operates on the 'snapshot'. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or exclusions, but the 'policy-layer read' phrasing implies it is not for entity-level screening.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
prepare_screening_receiptPrepare a screening receiptARead-onlyInspect
Bundle the screening checks into one idempotent Ed25519-signed receipt committing to the HASHED inputs, sources, snapshot checksum, retrieval times and decision states — provable evidence of WHAT was screened and WHEN. Attests the checks, not a clearance or a 'not sanctioned' claim. Screening evidence only; not a legal/compliance determination, not a clearance.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bundle | Yes | The screening results to attest (hashed inputs, sources, decision states — no raw PII). | |
| createdAt | Yes | ISO timestamp the bundle was assembled. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| billing | Yes | |
| product | Yes | |
| receipt | Yes | |
| decision | Yes | |
| retryable | Yes | |
| capability | Yes | |
| provenance | Yes | |
| generatedAt | Yes | |
| limitations | Yes | |
| schemaVersion | Yes | |
| receiptEnvelope | No | |
| decisionCategory | Yes |
TDQS
A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behaviors beyond the annotations: the receipt is idempotent, Ed25519-signed, and commits to specific elements (HASHED inputs, sources, snapshot checksum, retrieval times, decision states). It also explicitly scopes the attestation as evidence only, not a clearance or legal determination. This adds substantial value beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations.
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place. The description front-loads the core function, then adds crucial limitations in a compact form. No repetitive or vague language.
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?
Given the rich annotations, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, behavioral constraints, and parameter semantics. It also explains the receipt's evidentiary scope and exclusions, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, but the description enriches the 'bundle' parameter by naming additional contents (snapshot checksum, retrieval times) and reinforcing the 'no raw PII' constraint. This goes beyond the schema's brief description, adding meaningful semantic detail.
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 uses a specific verb ('Bundle... into... receipt'), names the resource (screening checks), and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on creating a signed receipt rather than screening or listing. It also clarifies what the receipt is not (a clearance or legal determination), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.
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 implies when to use the tool: when you need provable evidence of what was screened and when, in the form of a signed receipt. It includes strong exclusions ('not a clearance', 'not a legal/compliance determination') but does not explicitly name an alternative tool or contrast it with siblings, 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.
screen_sanctioned_identifierScreen an identifierARead-onlyInspect
Deterministic EXACT match of an identifier (passport / national id / registration / other) against listed designations' identifiers — no fuzzy matching. 'match' / 'clear' / 'unavailable'. Screening evidence only; not a legal/compliance determination, not a clearance. A 'clear' is not a guarantee of non-designation — snapshot-scoped.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Optional identifier type (e.g. passport, national_id, registration). | |
| identifier | No | The identifier value to check. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| billing | Yes | |
| product | Yes | |
| receipt | Yes | |
| decision | Yes | |
| retryable | Yes | |
| capability | Yes | |
| provenance | Yes | |
| generatedAt | Yes | |
| limitations | Yes | |
| schemaVersion | Yes | |
| receiptEnvelope | No | |
| decisionCategory | Yes |
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the read-only and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses deterministic exact-match behavior (no fuzzy matching), possible outputs ('match'/'clear'/'unavailable'), snapshot-scoping, and the non-guarantee of a 'clear'. This is rich behavioral context that helps the agent set expectations.
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?
Two tight sentences deliver the core purpose, matching mode, output values, and key caveats. Every clause earns its place; no filler or redundancy.
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?
With a rich input schema, output schema, and clear annotations, the description still adds critical context: exact-match behavior, snapshot scope, evidentiary nature, and non-clearance status. It fully equips the agent to understand the tool's limits and role among siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents both 'type' and 'identifier' with descriptions and 100% coverage. The description repeats the same identifier type examples from the schema, adding no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema shoulders the semantic load.
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 it screens an identifier (passport/national id/registration/other) against listed designations' identifiers using deterministic exact matching. This verb+resource definition distinguishes it from siblings like screen_sanctioned_name (which likely handles fuzzy name matching) and the listing/regime tools.
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?
It explicitly notes this is screening evidence only, not a legal/compliance determination or clearance, and that a 'clear' is snapshot-scoped. This sets clear boundaries on use. It stops short of naming alternative tools, but the 'no fuzzy matching' clue implies when to use a different screening path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
screen_sanctioned_nameScreen a counterparty nameARead-onlyInspect
Screen a counterparty name against a dated snapshot of the official EU Consolidated Financial Sanctions List. Returns ranked CANDIDATE designations with deterministic match scores, or 'clear'/'needs_review'/'possible_match'/'match'; no snapshot → 'unavailable'. Never a false clear on outage or fuzzy input. Screening evidence only; not a legal/compliance determination, not a clearance. A 'clear' is not a guarantee of non-designation — snapshot-scoped. Every result carries source, publication date, checksum and retrieval time.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Counterparty name to screen (test/non-production data). | |
| country | No | Optional ISO alpha-2 country to narrow. | |
| subjectType | No | Optional narrowing to a person or an entity. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| billing | Yes | |
| product | Yes | |
| receipt | Yes | |
| decision | Yes | |
| retryable | Yes | |
| capability | Yes | |
| provenance | Yes | |
| generatedAt | Yes | |
| limitations | Yes | |
| schemaVersion | Yes | |
| receiptEnvelope | No | |
| decisionCategory | Yes |
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive, but description adds substantial behavioral detail: deterministic match scores, 'unavailable' on missing snapshot, 'never a false clear on outage or fuzzy input', and result metadata (source, publication date, checksum, retrieval time). No contradictions 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is front-loaded with core action and returns, then caveats. Every sentence contributes behavioral or scoping information—no fluff or repetition. Length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.
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?
Given full schema, rich annotations, and output schema, description covers return categories, failure mode, legal scope, and result metadata. It fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so description adds little beyond what schema already states. It does not provide format or syntax specifics beyond schema, justifying baseline 3.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'screen' with resource 'counterparty name against a dated snapshot of the official EU Consolidated Financial Sanctions List'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling screen_sanctioned_identifier by specifying name-based screening.
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?
Provides clear context: screening evidence only, not a legal/compliance determination, snapshot-scoped, and behavior on outages. Does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the caveats make intended usage unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
5 tool updates
- Changed
get_sanctions_listing1 field changed- added
Output schema / properties / receiptEnvelopeAdded value: +{ + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "algorithm": { + "type": "string" + }, + "canonicalizationVersion": { + "type": "string" + }, + "keyId": { + "type": "string" + }, + "payload": { + "type": "object" + }, + "publicKeyUrl": { + "type": "string" + }, + "receiptVersion": { + "type": "string" + }, + "resultHash": { + "type": "string" + }, + "signature": { + "type": "string" + }, + "verificationUrl": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "receiptVersion", + "canonicalizationVersion", + "algorithm", + "keyId", + "payload", + "signature", + "publicKeyUrl", + "verificationUrl" + ], + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
list_sanctions_regimes1 field changed- added
Output schema / properties / receiptEnvelopeAdded value: +{ + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "algorithm": { + "type": "string" + }, + "canonicalizationVersion": { + "type": "string" + }, + "keyId": { + "type": "string" + }, + "payload": { + "type": "object" + }, + "publicKeyUrl": { + "type": "string" + }, + "receiptVersion": { + "type": "string" + }, + "resultHash": { + "type": "string" + }, + "signature": { + "type": "string" + }, + "verificationUrl": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "receiptVersion", + "canonicalizationVersion", + "algorithm", + "keyId", + "payload", + "signature", + "publicKeyUrl", + "verificationUrl" + ], + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
prepare_screening_receipt1 field changed- added
Output schema / properties / receiptEnvelopeAdded value: +{ + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "algorithm": { + "type": "string" + }, + "canonicalizationVersion": { + "type": "string" + }, + "keyId": { + "type": "string" + }, + "payload": { + "type": "object" + }, + "publicKeyUrl": { + "type": "string" + }, + "receiptVersion": { + "type": "string" + }, + "resultHash": { + "type": "string" + }, + "signature": { + "type": "string" + }, + "verificationUrl": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "receiptVersion", + "canonicalizationVersion", + "algorithm", + "keyId", + "payload", + "signature", + "publicKeyUrl", + "verificationUrl" + ], + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
screen_sanctioned_identifier1 field changed- added
Output schema / properties / receiptEnvelopeAdded value: +{ + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "algorithm": { + "type": "string" + }, + "canonicalizationVersion": { + "type": "string" + }, + "keyId": { + "type": "string" + }, + "payload": { + "type": "object" + }, + "publicKeyUrl": { + "type": "string" + }, + "receiptVersion": { + "type": "string" + }, + "resultHash": { + "type": "string" + }, + "signature": { + "type": "string" + }, + "verificationUrl": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "receiptVersion", + "canonicalizationVersion", + "algorithm", + "keyId", + "payload", + "signature", + "publicKeyUrl", + "verificationUrl" + ], + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
screen_sanctioned_name1 field changed- added
Output schema / properties / receiptEnvelopeAdded value: +{ + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "algorithm": { + "type": "string" + }, + "canonicalizationVersion": { + "type": "string" + }, + "keyId": { + "type": "string" + }, + "payload": { + "type": "object" + }, + "publicKeyUrl": { + "type": "string" + }, + "receiptVersion": { + "type": "string" + }, + "resultHash": { + "type": "string" + }, + "signature": { + "type": "string" + }, + "verificationUrl": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "receiptVersion", + "canonicalizationVersion", + "algorithm", + "keyId", + "payload", + "signature", + "publicKeyUrl", + "verificationUrl" + ], + "type": "object" +}
1 tool update
- Changed
prepare_screening_receipt1 field changed- changed
Output schema / properties / decision / enumPrevious value: -[ - "screened", - "unavailable" -]New value: +[ + "screened", + "partial", + "needs_review", + "unavailable" +]
5 tool updates
- First observed
get_sanctions_listing - First observed
list_sanctions_regimes - First observed
prepare_screening_receipt - First observed
screen_sanctioned_identifier - First observed
screen_sanctioned_name
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Read-only EU import preflight over MCP: EORI, TARIC candidates, measures, low-value cost
Sanctions screening against OFAC SDN, the EU Consolidated list and the UK Sanctions List.
OFAC and global sanctions screening: crypto addresses, emails, websites, IDs, countries, VPN, geo
Pre-payout IBAN screening for AI agents: validation, sanctions, Swiss clearing, risk scoring
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceChecks if a name appears in the EU financial sanctions list for compliance and AML due diligence. Provides a read-only MCP tool that works with any MCP client over HTTP.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceTrust Intelligence API - entity screening, sanctions, risk scoring, IBAN validation, and compliance checks via MCPMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceVerifies names against US OFAC sanctions lists, including SDN and Non-SDN, for compliance and AML. It provides a read-only MCP tool that works with any MCP client via HTTP.MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action: screening by name, screening by identifier, retrieving listing details, enumerating regimes, and preparing receipts. No overlap in purpose or input/output types.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use consistent snake_case verb_noun naming. Retrieval tools use get_/list_ appropriately, screening tools use screen_, and the receipt tool uses prepare_. The two screening tools share a clear sub-pattern.
Tool Count5/5
Five tools is well-scoped for the sanctions preflight domain, covering the full workflow without redundancy.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the complete preflight workflow: screen by name or identifier, retrieve full listing details for a candidate, enumerate sanctions regimes, and generate a signed receipt. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.