OFACScreen Sanctions Screening

Sanctions screening (OFAC SDN + 7 more lists)

screen_entity

Read-onlyIdempotent

Screen a person or company name against 8 sanctions lists: OFAC SDN, OFAC Non-SDN (Consolidated), BIS Denied Persons List, UN Security Council Consolidated List, EU Financial Sanctions File, UK OFSI Consolidated List, Canada SEMA, and Swiss SECO. Fuzzy name matching, so transliterations and spelling variants still surface. Returns the number of potential matches and the ten highest scoring, each with its score, list, program, aliases and addresses. Free, no account, 25 screenings a day per caller. A score is name similarity and not a finding that a match is the same person. The screening itself is not recorded and produces no document: report_url opens the same search on ofacscreen.com, where a timestamped PDF record of it can be bought. The price is in report_price. Calling this tool is free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Full name of the person or entity to screen, e.g. "Vladimir Petrov" or "Acme Trading LLC". Up to 300 characters.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`results`	Yes
`report_url`	Yes
`match_found`	Yes
`screened_at`	No
`report_price`	Yes
`results_count`	Yes
`results_shown`	No
`lists_screened`	No
`is_audit_record`	No
`lists_refreshed`	No
`results_truncated`	No
`results_count_is_capped`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed13 schema fields changedAug 19, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / entity_type

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Optional filter: restrict matches to individuals or to entities/organizations. Omit to search both.",
-  "enum": [
-    "individual",
-    "entity"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / properties / name / description

Previous value: -"Full name of the person or entity to screen, e.g. \"Vladimir Petrov\" or \"Acme Trading LLC\"."New value: +"Full name of the person or entity to screen, e.g. \"Vladimir Petrov\" or \"Acme Trading LLC\". Up to 300 characters."

addedInput schema / properties / name / maxLength
```
Added value: +300
```
addedOutput schema / properties / is_audit_record
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / lists_refreshed

Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / lists_screened
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "integer"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / addresses_total
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "integer"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / aliases_total
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "integer"
+}
```
changedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / matched_alias / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
addedOutput schema / properties / results_count_is_capped
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / results_shown
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "integer"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / results_truncated
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / screened_at
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

First observedAug 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral depth: it states the screening is not recorded and produces no document, explains that report_url only opens the same search on ofacscreen.com where a PDF can be purchased, and clarifies the cost (free call, paid report). It also discloses the 25-per-day limit and that the score is not a legal finding. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a complete understanding of side effects and limitations.

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 longer than many but every sentence adds value: it lists the eight lists, mentions fuzzy matching, describes the return format, gives the rate limit, explains the score's meaning, and clarifies the paid PDF option. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides necessary caveats. There is no fluff or repetition; each clause serves a purpose. A slightly tighter phrasing could reduce length, but it remains highly efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter), the existing annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which presumably details the returned fields), the description covers all critical contextual aspects: the exact lists, the fuzzy-matching behavior, the free tier and rate limit, the non-recorded nature, the score interpretation, and the report purchase flow. It leaves no ambiguity about what happens when the tool is called, making it fully self-sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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?

The schema already describes the 'name' parameter thoroughly: 'Full name of the person or entity to screen, e.g. "Vladimir Petrov" or "Acme Trading LLC". Up to 300 characters.' The description adds that fuzzy matching is used, which influences how the parameter is interpreted, but this is more about tool behavior than the parameter itself. Since schema coverage is 100% and the description contributes little additional semantic detail beyond the example, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 description immediately states the tool's core action: 'Screen a person or company name against 8 sanctions lists.' It then enumerates the exact lists (OFAC SDN, OFAC Non-SDN, etc.), making it unmistakable what resource is being queried. It also describes fuzzy matching and the output (number of potential matches and top ten scoring hits), fully distinguishing it from any hypothetical alternative. Even without sibling tools, the purpose is precise and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear practical usage context: it is free, requires no account, has a rate limit (25 per day), and explicitly warns that the score represents name similarity, not a definitive match. It also explains how to obtain a timestamped PDF via report_url. While it doesn't mention alternative tools or when-not-to-use, the lack of sibling tools makes this less critical. The guidance is actionable and prevents misinterpretation of results.

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

All OFACScreen Sanctions Screening tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

There is only one tool, so there is no possibility of overlapping or confusing tool purposes within the server. screen_entity is clearly the sole operation for sanctions screening.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name, screen_entity, follows a clear verb_noun pattern and is immediately understandable. With only one tool, there are no competing conventions or inconsistent naming styles to confuse an agent.

Tool Count3/5

One tool is functional but feels thin for a sanctions screening domain that could reasonably offer batch screening or list-specific lookups. The count is at the very low end of the rubric, though the single tool is not trivial.

Completeness4/5

The core screening workflow is well covered: it searches multiple sanctions lists, handles fuzzy name matching, and returns match details. Minor gaps exist, such as no batch screening tool and no built-in report or PDF generation, but agents can work around these by calling the tool repeatedly.

Resources

Need Help?