Skip to main content
Glama

Screen Sanctions

screen_sanctions

Screen names, addresses, or entities against global sanctions lists including OFAC, EU, UN, and UK. Returns matches with scores to identify potential risks.

Instructions

Screen an address, name, or entity against global sanctions lists (OFAC SDN, EU, UN, UK). Returns matching entries with match scores. Cost: $0.005 per query. Source: Consolidated sanctions lists, updated daily.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoName or alias to screen
addressNoCrypto address to screen
thresholdNoMinimum match score (0-1, default 0.8)

Implementation Reference

  • Registration of the 'screen_sanctions' tool on the MCP server, including inputSchema (name, address, threshold) and the async handler that calls the API endpoint /api/v1/sanctions/screen.
    server.registerTool(
      "screen_sanctions",
      {
        title: "Screen Sanctions",
        description:
          "Screen an address, name, or entity against global sanctions lists (OFAC SDN, EU, " +
          "UN, UK). Returns matching entries with match scores. " +
          "Cost: $0.005 per query. Source: Consolidated sanctions lists, updated daily.",
        inputSchema: {
          name: z
            .string()
            .optional()
            .describe("Name or alias to screen"),
          address: z
            .string()
            .optional()
            .describe("Crypto address to screen"),
          threshold: z
            .number()
            .min(0)
            .max(1)
            .optional()
            .describe("Minimum match score (0-1, default 0.8)"),
        },
      },
      async ({ name, address, threshold }) => {
        const res = await apiGet<SanctionsQueryResponse>(
          "/api/v1/sanctions/screen",
          {
            name,
            address,
            threshold: threshold ?? 0.8,
          },
        );
    
        if (!res.ok) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text" as const,
                text: `API error (${res.status}): ${JSON.stringify(res.data)}`,
              },
            ],
            isError: true,
          };
        }
    
        const { count, data } = res.data;
        const warn = stalenessWarning(res);
        const summary = `${warn}Found ${count} sanctions match(es).`;
        const json = JSON.stringify(data, null, 2);
    
        return {
          content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: `${summary}\n\n${json}` }],
        };
      },
    );
  • Handler function for screen_sanctions. Calls apiGet to /api/v1/sanctions/screen with name, address, and threshold params, then formats the response as text content with match count and JSON data.
    async ({ name, address, threshold }) => {
      const res = await apiGet<SanctionsQueryResponse>(
        "/api/v1/sanctions/screen",
        {
          name,
          address,
          threshold: threshold ?? 0.8,
        },
      );
    
      if (!res.ok) {
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text" as const,
              text: `API error (${res.status}): ${JSON.stringify(res.data)}`,
            },
          ],
          isError: true,
        };
      }
    
      const { count, data } = res.data;
      const warn = stalenessWarning(res);
      const summary = `${warn}Found ${count} sanctions match(es).`;
      const json = JSON.stringify(data, null, 2);
    
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: `${summary}\n\n${json}` }],
      };
    },
  • Input schema for screen_sanctions: optional name (string), optional address (string), optional threshold (number 0-1, default 0.8).
    inputSchema: {
      name: z
        .string()
        .optional()
        .describe("Name or alias to screen"),
      address: z
        .string()
        .optional()
        .describe("Crypto address to screen"),
      threshold: z
        .number()
        .min(0)
        .max(1)
        .optional()
        .describe("Minimum match score (0-1, default 0.8)"),
    },
  • The apiGet helper function used by the handler to make GET requests to the Verilex API.
    export async function apiGet<T = unknown>(
      path: string,
      params?: Record<string, string | number | undefined>,
    ): Promise<ApiResponse<T>> {
      const url = buildUrl(path, params);
    
      const headers: Record<string, string> = {
        Accept: "application/json",
        "User-Agent": "verilex-mcp-server/0.1.0",
      };
    
      // Forward x402 payment token if present in env (for paid endpoints)
      const paymentToken = process.env.VERILEX_PAYMENT_TOKEN;
      if (paymentToken) {
        headers["X-Payment-Token"] = paymentToken;
      }
    
      const res = await fetch(url, { headers });
      const data = (await res.json()) as T;
    
      const stale = res.headers.get("X-Data-Stale");
      const lastUpdated = res.headers.get("X-Data-Last-Updated");
      const ageSeconds = res.headers.get("X-Data-Age-Seconds");
    
      return {
        ok: res.ok,
        status: res.status,
        data,
        stale: stale === "true",
        lastUpdated: lastUpdated ?? undefined,
        ageSeconds: ageSeconds ? Number(ageSeconds) : undefined,
      };
    }
  • The stalenessWarning helper function used by the handler to add a staleness warning if data is stale.
    export function stalenessWarning(res: ApiResponse): string {
      if (!res.stale) return "";
      const parts = ["[STALE DATA]"];
      if (res.lastUpdated) parts.push(`Last updated: ${res.lastUpdated}`);
      if (res.ageSeconds != null) parts.push(`Age: ${res.ageSeconds}s`);
      return parts.join(" ") + "\n\n";
    }
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds useful behavioral context: cost per query, source freshness (daily updates), and return type (matching entries with scores). However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or if it has any side effects.

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 concise (3 sentences) with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and includes key details like cost and update frequency.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers return values (matching entries with scores) but misses error handling, limits, or pagination. It is adequate for a straightforward screening tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so description does not need to add much. The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema already provides, 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.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (screen), the resource (address/name/entity against sanctions lists), and lists specific lists (OFAC SDN, EU, UN, UK). It distinguishes from siblings like search_sanctions by focusing on screening versus searching.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_sanctions or screen_companies. The description provides context (cost, source) but lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/carrierone/verilexdata-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server