ofac-match
Related Servers
Alternatives to ofac-match
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceScreens 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.-
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables agents to fuzzy-screen person and company names against the OFAC SDN/Consolidated, EU, UK and UN sanctions lists downloaded fresh from official sources, returning potential-match statuses, 0–100 scores and listing details via a billed screening tool, plus a free local tool that lists covered sources, score scale and disclaimer.3MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceScreen names against consolidated OFAC, EU, UK, and UN sanctions lists and resolve legal entities via GLEIF, with offline fuzzy matching.342 npm3Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for OFAC SDN sanctions screening. Check names against US Treasury sanctions lists with automatic cache refresh. No API key needed for the check itself.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceScreens names against the US Consolidated Screening List including OFAC SDN and BIS Entity List, keyless.207 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceVerifies names against US OFAC sanctions lists, including SDN and Non-SDN, for compliance and AML. It provides a read-only MCP tool that works with any MCP client via HTTP.MIT
TDQS
Scored across 5 tools
The five tools occupy distinct roles: single screening, batch screening, score explanation, list provenance, and entry lookup. The only near-collision is screen_name vs screen_names, but the descriptions explicitly state the plural is a bulk summary and directs agents to the singular for detail, which resolves the overlap.
All names follow a strict snake_case verb_noun pattern (screen_name, screen_names, compare_names, get_list_info, get_sanctions_entry). The singular/plural pair is a predictable and readable convention rather than a deviation.
Five tools is tightly scoped to the screening domain, with each tool earning its place: screen, batch screen, explain, list metadata, and entry retrieval. Nothing feels extraneous or missing at the surface level.
The core lifecycle — screen a name, screen many, explain a score, inspect the underlying SDN record, and verify list freshness — is fully covered with no dead ends. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool to browse or search entries by program/country without a name, but agents can work around this.