Skip to main content
Glama

Screen a Name Against Sanctions Lists

sanctions_screen
Read-onlyIdempotent

Screen a person or company name against UK, US, EU, and UN consolidated sanctions lists to identify potential matches for compliance checks.

Instructions

Screen a name against the UK (OFSI), US (OFAC), EU and UN consolidated sanctions lists.

Returns every list entry whose primary name or alias matches, with the regime, source reference and listing date. Use it to check whether a counterparty — or its officers / persons with significant control — appears on a sanctions list.

MATCHING is deterministic: normalised exact + alias match (case-, accent- and punctuation-insensitive). A company/entity legal name matches reliably; PERSON names with transliteration variants may not (e.g. 'Mohammed' vs 'Muhamad'). An empty result is therefore NOT a guarantee of clearance, and a hit on a common name may be a false positive to disambiguate. This is a screening aid, not a compliance determination.

lists_screened reports which of OFSI/OFAC/EU/UN were actually loaded — if any is missing the result is partial. as_at is when the lists were last refreshed on this server.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPerson or company/entity name to screen against the consolidated sanctions lists.
entity_typeNoOptional filter: 'person' or 'entity'. Omit to screen both.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hitsNoMatching list entries. An empty list means no exact/alias match on the screened lists — NOT a guarantee of clearance (see the tool description on matching limits).
as_atNoWhen this server last refreshed the loaded lists (ISO timestamp). Provenance for the screen — the lists update on designation.
queryYesThe name that was screened.
match_countYesNumber of list entries that matched the query.
lists_screenedNoWhich consolidated lists were loaded and actually screened for this call. A list absent here failed to load and was NOT screened — treat the result as partial if any of OFSI/OFAC/EU/UN is missing.
normalized_queryYesThe normalised form used for matching (upper-cased, accent- and punctuation-stripped, whitespace-collapsed).
entity_type_filterNoentity_type filter applied to the screen ('person'/'entity'), or null.
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) are fully supported by the description, which adds details on matching algorithm (case-/accent-/punctuation-insensitive), deterministic nature, and partial result conditions. No contradictions.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by output explanation, usage guidance, and matching details. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of sanctions screening, the description is highly complete: it covers matching algorithm, limitations, output fields, and caveats about empty results and false positives. An output schema exists but the description already explains return values sufficiently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains the matching behavior, transliteration uncertainties, and the meaning of output fields, which aids correct interpretation.

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?

The title and description clearly state that the tool screens a name against multiple sanctions lists (UK, US, EU, UN). The verb 'screen' and resource 'sanctions lists' are specific, and there is no sibling tool with similar purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use it (check counterparty against sanctions lists) and provides important caveats: empty result is not clearance, deterministic matching limitations, and screening aid only. It also explains output fields like lists_screened and as_at.

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/paulieb89/uk-due-diligence-mcp'

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