Hive Aml Screen
Server Details
Real-time AML and sanctions screening for agent-to-agent transactions
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- srotzin/hive-mcp-aml-screen
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: single address screening, bulk screening, and daily statistics. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools consistently use the 'aml_' prefix followed by a descriptive verb (screen, bulk_screen, today), forming a clear and predictable pattern.
Three tools are well-scoped for the server's purpose: covering single screening, bulk screening, and reporting. Neither too few nor too many.
The set covers the core workflows (screening addresses and viewing usage stats), but lacks a tool to retrieve historical screening details or manage cached results, though these are minor gaps for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
3 toolsaml_bulk_screenAInspect
Screen 10 or more addresses in a single call. $0.025 per address with a 10-address minimum. Cached 24h per address. Hive does not block, freeze, or settle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | base | |
| addresses | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses pricing, caching duration, and that the tool does not execute blocking actions. It provides useful behavioral context beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each adding value: action, pricing/minimum, and caching/non-action. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers pricing, caching, and non-blocking behavior, but lacks details on the 'chain' parameter, output, or error handling. Adequate but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. The description mentions addresses but fails to explain the 'chain' parameter, its default, or its purpose. This leaves a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool screens 10 or more addresses in a single call, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing bulk screening.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use: when you have 10+ addresses, due to the minimum. It also notes caching and pricing, but does not explicitly contrast with aml_screen or aml_today.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
aml_screenAInspect
Screen a single address against the OFAC SDN list and on-chain heuristic flags. Returns a 0-100 observational risk score and category flags. $0.03 per screening via x402. Cached 24h. Hive does not block, freeze, or settle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Chain identifier. Default base. | base |
| address | Yes | Wallet or contract address. | |
| force_refresh | No | Bypass the 24h cache and re-screen. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds behavioral context: returns risk score and flags, costs $0.03, cached 24h, and clarifies Hive does not block/freeze/settle. This is good but could mention error handling or auth needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four concise sentences covering purpose, output, cost, caching, and disclaimer. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple screening tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output, cost, caching, and a liability disclaimer. It could expand on error handling or rate limits, but it's largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool screens a single address against OFAC SDN list and on-chain flags, distinguishing it from sibling tools aml_bulk_screen and aml_today by specifying 'single address'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aml_bulk_screen or aml_today. It implies single address use but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
aml_todayBInspect
Return today's UTC counters: screenings, cache hits, SDN matches, OFAC list status, revenue. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'today's UTC counters' and 'Free', but lacks details on data freshness, update frequency, side effects, 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and key output fields, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lists the output fields but does not explain their meaning, update timing, or any other context needed to fully interpret the results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information but the baseline is high due to absence of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'today's UTC counters' with a list of specific fields like screenings, cache hits, SDN matches. It provides a concise purpose but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like aml_bulk_screen and aml_screen.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving today's statistics without parameters, and notes it's 'Free'. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling screening tools.
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!