Sanctions Screen (OFAC, EU, UK, UN)

screen_sanctions

Screen a customer, supplier or payee against official sanctions lists before onboarding, contracting or paying them. Fuzzy-matches a name (optional country, date of birth) against OFAC SDN + Consolidated, EU and UK lists (UN via EU/UK). Returns no_match, possible_match, confirmed_match or unable_to_determine with confidence, sources and coverage_limitations. Not legal advice. Use when one party must be cleared before money or goods move. $0.02 per call, USDC on Base (x402). Terms: https://sanctions-screen-production.up.railway.app/terms Privacy: https://sanctions-screen-production.up.railway.app/privacy

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "screen_sanctions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dob`	No	Optional date of birth YYYY, YYYY-MM or YYYY-MM-DD
`name`	Yes	Person or company name to screen
`type`	No	Subject type filter (default any)
`country`	No	Optional ISO2 code or country name
`min_score`	No	Match threshold (default 0.88)
`payment_signature`	No	x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value. Omit to receive payment requirements.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it names the lists queried (including the UN-via-EU/UK caveat), the four possible verdicts with confidence/sources/coverage_limitations, the $0.02 USDC-on-Base cost, the x402 payment model, and a 'not legal advice' disclaimer. It stops short of stating auth requirements or rate limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose and trigger conditions are front-loaded, followed by data sources, return values, cost model, and legal links. Dense but every clause carries decision-relevant information for a compliance-screening call.

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?

For a payment-gated tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by disclosing result categories, cost and payment mechanism, and coverage limitations. Rate limits and precise auth flow remain unspecified, preventing a 5.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, and the description adds little parameter-level detail beyond mention of name, optional country and DOB. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (Screen) and resource (customer/supplier/payee) plus the exact data sources consulted (OFAC SDN + Consolidated, EU, UK). An agent immediately knows what the tool does and its compliance 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?

Gives concrete trigger conditions: 'before onboarding, contracting or paying them' and 'when one party must be cleared before money or goods move.' Clear when-to-use context, though there are no sibling alternatives or exclusions to weigh against since none exist.

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

All Sanctions Screen (OFAC, EU, UK, UN) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?