No user-submitted related servers found.
Scored across 2 tools
screen_names performs actual sanctions screening while list_sources only returns static metadata about the covered lists. The descriptions explicitly state when to use each and forbid using the other for the wrong task, so an agent can easily tell them apart.
Both tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern in snake_case (screen_names, list_sources). There is no mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
The server has only two tools, and while each earns its place (screen_names does the core work, list_sources supports it), the surface is thin for a screening service that could plausibly offer tools to inspect cache status or retrieve specific entry details. This is borderline per the rubric for 1-2 tools.
The core screening workflow is fully covered with rich parameters (names/queries, filters, minScore, list selection) and a helper for source metadata. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool to manage or inspect the Apify cache or fetch a single list entry outside of screening results, but these are workable.
