A
license-
qualityC
maintenanceScreens names against the US Consolidated Screening List including OFAC SDN and BIS Entity List, keyless.
10
MIT
OFACScreen Sanctions Screening
Server Details
Screen names against OFAC SDN and 7 more global sanctions lists. Free, no account required.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.2/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The purpose is singular and unambiguous.
Naming Consistency5/5
The sole tool name 'screen_entity' follows a clear verb_noun pattern. While there are no other tools to compare, the naming is consistent with common conventions.
Tool Count3/5
A single tool feels thin even for a focused purpose—potential helper functions like listing sanctioned lists or status checks are absent. However, the scope is clear and the tool is fully featured for its stated function.
Completeness4/5
The screening workflow is covered end-to-end with a single call, including multiple lists and a report URL. Minor gaps like batch processing or list customization do not hinder core usability.
Available Tools
1 toolscreen_entitySanctions screening (OFAC SDN + 7 more lists)ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Screen a person or entity name against 8 global sanctions lists: OFAC SDN, OFAC Non-SDN (Consolidated), BIS Denied Persons List, UN Security Council Consolidated List, EU Financial Sanctions File, UK OFSI Consolidated List, Canada SEMA, and Swiss SECO. Uses fuzzy name matching and returns scored matches with aliases and addresses. Free to use, no account required. Results include a report_url where an audit-ready PDF of the screening can be obtained.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Full name of the person or entity to screen, e.g. "Vladimir Petrov" or "Acme Trading LLC". | |
| entity_type | No | Optional filter: restrict matches to individuals or to entities/organizations. Omit to search both. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | |
| results | Yes | |
| report_url | Yes | |
| match_found | Yes | |
| report_price | Yes | |
| results_count | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations that declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, the description adds that it 'Uses fuzzy name matching and returns scored matches with aliases and addresses,' and that results include a 'report_url' for an audit-ready PDF. This provides useful context on how the tool behaves and what it returns, though it doesn't detail failure modes or error handling.
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-loads the primary action, followed by key behavioral details and a note on accessibility. The enumerating of 8 list names is detailed but relevant; no sentence is wasted.
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?
The tool has a clear scope, and the presence of an output schema covers return value details, so the description doesn't need to enumerate them. It covers the main behavioral aspects (fuzzy matching, scored results, report_url) and access conditions (free, no account), making it reasonably 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes both parameters (name and entity_type) with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It does add a note about fuzzy matching that affects how the name parameter is interpreted, but otherwise it doesn't provide significant additional semantic meaning beyond the schema.
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 the specific verb 'Screen' and specifies the resource ('a person or entity name') against 8 named global sanctions lists, clearly distinguishing it from any generic search or lookup. It enumerates the exact lists, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's 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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool (for sanctions screening) and notes 'Free to use, no account required,' suggesting accessibility. However, there are no explicit exclusion criteria or alternative tools named, and the absence of sibling tools means differentiation is not needed, but the guidance is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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 Servers
- Flicense-qualityBmaintenanceScreens names and companies against OFAC, EU, UK, and UN sanctions lists with fuzzy-match scores, supporting bulk lookups for AML/KYC checks. Data is sourced directly from official government lists and cached for fast repeat checks.
- Alicense-qualityAmaintenanceScreen names against consolidated OFAC, EU, UK, and UN sanctions lists and resolve legal entities via GLEIF, with offline fuzzy matching.1201Apache 2.0
- Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceChecks names against US FinCEN financial crime lists for compliance and AML due diligence, with a single read-only tool.MIT
