Sanctions Screening
REMOTE · HATCHLOOP.DEV · SCANNED SEP 21
Screen a name or entity against OFAC SDN, the EU Consolidated list and the UK list.
Available components
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security74
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- No authorisation is required to call this server. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability85
- 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 1462 tokens (~112/item across 13 items; 8 tools + 5 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management77
- Stability observed for 23 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage95
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 86% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 8 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 10 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
How do I install the Sanctions Screening MCP server?
Sanctions Screening is a hosted endpoint at https://hatchloop.dev/mcp/sanctions-screening, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · hatchloop.dev
claude mcp add --transport http dev-hatchloop-sanctions-screening 'https://hatchloop.dev/mcp/sanctions-screening'
{
"mcpServers": {
"dev-hatchloop-sanctions-screening": {
"url": "https://hatchloop.dev/mcp/sanctions-screening"
}
}
} {
"servers": {
"dev-hatchloop-sanctions-screening": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://hatchloop.dev/mcp/sanctions-screening"
}
}
} [mcp_servers.dev-hatchloop-sanctions-screening] url = "https://hatchloop.dev/mcp/sanctions-screening"
{
"$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
"mcp": {
"dev-hatchloop-sanctions-screening": {
"type": "remote",
"url": "https://hatchloop.dev/mcp/sanctions-screening",
"enabled": true
}
}
} openclaw mcp add dev-hatchloop-sanctions-screening --url 'https://hatchloop.dev/mcp/sanctions-screening' --transport streamable-http
mcp_servers:
dev-hatchloop-sanctions-screening:
url: "https://hatchloop.dev/mcp/sanctions-screening" {
"McpServers": {
"dev-hatchloop-sanctions-screening": {
"Transport": "http",
"Url": "https://hatchloop.dev/mcp/sanctions-screening"
}
}
} assistant mcp add dev-hatchloop-sanctions-screening -t streamable-http -u 'https://hatchloop.dev/mcp/sanctions-screening'
{
"mcpServers": {
"dev-hatchloop-sanctions-screening": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://hatchloop.dev/mcp/sanctions-screening"
}
}
} The mcpServers block is a cross-client convention. Remote transports vary, so check your client's docs.
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 21 Sept 26 0
- The server rewrote its instructions, which are the text every model session reads security
- Schema quality: good → excellent functional
- 20 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 70 to 73. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 21 days of observed history at the previous scan, 22 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 18 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 63 to 67. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 19 days of observed history at the previous scan, 20 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 16 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 57 to 60. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 17 days of observed history at the previous scan, 18 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 13 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 47 to 50. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 14 days of observed history at the previous scan, 15 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 11 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 40 to 43. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 12 days of observed history at the previous scan, 13 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 10 Sept 26 0
- HSTS header: pass → fail ▼ security
- Tool “check_compliance” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “get_outcome” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “get_status” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “map_trade_restriction” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “preview_cost” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “screen_sanctions” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “self_test” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “verify_company_record” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Schema quality: 294 → 109 ▲ functional
- “check_compliance” reworded the description of “channel” cosmetic
- “check_compliance” reworded the description of “content” cosmetic
- “check_compliance” reworded the description of “country_code” cosmetic
- “check_compliance” reworded the description of “message_type” cosmetic
- “map_trade_restriction” reworded the description of “destination_country” cosmetic
- “map_trade_restriction” reworded the description of “hs_code” cosmetic
- “map_trade_restriction” reworded the description of “origin_country” cosmetic
- “map_trade_restriction” reworded the description of “parties” cosmetic
- “map_trade_restriction” reworded the description of “product” cosmetic
- “screen_sanctions” reworded the description of “country” cosmetic
- “screen_sanctions” reworded the description of “name” cosmetic
- “screen_sanctions” reworded the description of “type” cosmetic
- “verify_company_record” reworded the description of “country” cosmetic
- 9 Sept 26 0
- Schema quality: excellent → good functional
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 21 Sept 2026 · Probed https://hatchloop.dev/mcp/sanctions-screening
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=hatchloop.dev | CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 9 Sept 2026 | 8 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 585b21c0597f38a72ae9ec226ee06a39406 |
| SANs: hatchloop.dev | ||||||
| CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 4df3b15dd6c0784c507cd37b58e6f115 |
| CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 872165fc34b6e5fba8add5b3705fb53a |
| CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 6c8f1dc727c7117f7baf853ac980f9cd |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of hatchloop.dev. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| dev. | present | 60074 | 8 | Verified |
| hatchloop.dev. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication No authorisation required
The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.
| Result | No authorisation required |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 200 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://hatchloop.dev/mcp/sanctions-screening | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://hatchloop.dev/mcp/sanctions-screening | HTTPS enforced | 308 | https://hatchloop.dev/mcp/sanctions-screening |
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
check_compliance ~283
Free, instant pre-flight for the compliance gate. Runs the SAME TCPA / GDPR / CASL / CAN-SPAM / 10DLC gate that send_message and call_business run — but in preview mode, so NO message is sent and NO state changes. Tells you whether a (recipient, channel, message_type, content) send would be permitted BEFORE you pay for it, and if not, names the exact rule and how to remediate. Use it to de-risk a paid send the same way check_booking_link… [free, no key]
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | string | – | Delivery channel. Omit to auto-infer sms/email from recipient_id; set 'voice'… |
| content | string | yes | The actual message body you intend to send. The gate classifies the real text,… |
| country_code | string | – | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 (e.g. 'US', 'DE', 'CA'). Auto-inferred from phone if… |
| message_type | string | – | Intent tag: transactional, marketing, reminder, follow_up, notification.… |
| recipient_id | string | yes | Phone in E.164 (e.g. '+14045550100') or email address the message would go to. |
| state_code | string | – | US state code (e.g. 'CA') for state-specific rules. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_outcome ~33
Retrieve the final OutcomeReceipt for a completed operation. [free, no key]
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_status ~36
Query the current state of any in-flight async operation by operation_id. [free, no key]
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
map_trade_restriction ~264
Free cross-border trade screening of the DESTINATION and the PARTIES. IT DOES NOT CLASSIFY THE PRODUCT: the product argument is recorded and echoed back, never checked against any export-control list, so a controlled item to an unrestricted destination returns no findings and reason_code 'partial' -- never 'clear'. This is not an export-control clearance; classify the item (HS/ECCN) against BIS/EU/UK controls yourself. Given a product and… [free in quota, then $0.02/call]
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| destination_country | string | yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code for the importing country (e.g. 'IR', 'CA', 'DE').… |
| hs_code | string | – | Optional Harmonized System code (e.g. '8471.30' for laptops). If provided,… |
| origin_country | string | – | Optional ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code for the exporting country (e.g. 'US', 'DE').… |
| parties | array | – | Optional list of party names to screen (exporter, importer, freight forwarder,… |
| product | string | yes | Product name or description, e.g. 'laptop computers', 'crude oil', 'medical… |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
preview_cost ~95
Return an expected cost estimate, latency estimate, and success-probability estimate for a proposed call before execution. Returns the exact price when it is fixed, and a min/max range when the cost depends on channel or outcome. It does not promise an accuracy percentage - check cost_range. [free, no key]
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation | string | yes | – |
| params | object | yes | The same request body you would pass to the operation |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
screen_sanctions ~201
Free screening of a name or entity against official sanctions lists, each fetched from the authority that issues it: the OFAC SDN list from the US Treasury (SDN.CSV plus ALT.CSV for alternate spellings), the EU consolidated financial sanctions list from the European Commission, and the UK Sanctions List from the FCDO. THE UN CONSOLIDATED LIST IS NOT SCREENED -- it carries no licence permitting commercial redistribution, so we do not claim it.… [free in quota, then $0.02/call]
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | string | – | Optional ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code or country name (e.g. 'IR', 'Iran').… |
| name | string | yes | Full name of the person or entity to screen, e.g. 'Kim Jong-un' or 'ACME… |
| type | string | – | Optional entity type hint. 'person' for individuals, 'entity' for… |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
self_test ~54
Service health probe: runs 6 internal checks and reports how many passed. Confirms the server is up and responding - it does NOT probe each tool individually. Use to verify connectivity before production use. [free, no key]
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
verify_company_record ~189
Free, live lookup of a company official registry record. Queries the GLEIF global LEI registry (primary, 2.6 million legal entities worldwide) and SEC EDGAR (US public companies) to return the official legal name, LEI, entity status, jurisdiction, registered address, and registry authority. Never fabricates: if the company is not found in these free registries, returns an honest not_found with the sources that were queried. [free in quota, then $0.02/call]
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | string | – | Optional ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country filter (e.g. US, DE, GB). Narrows GLEIF… |
| lei | string | – | Optional 20-character Legal Entity Identifier for a direct, precise lookup. |
| name | string | yes | Legal company name to look up, e.g. Apple Inc or Volkswagen AG. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
What is the Sanctions Screening MCP server?
Sanctions Screening is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as dev.hatchloop/sanctions-screening. Screen a name or entity against OFAC SDN, the EU Consolidated list and the UK list. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://hatchloop.dev/mcp/sanctions-screening).
Is the Sanctions Screening MCP server safe to use?
Sanctions Screening scores 83 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the Sanctions Screening MCP server expose?
Sanctions Screening exposes 8 tools: get_status, get_outcome, preview_cost, self_test, check_compliance, and 3 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,155 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Sanctions Screening MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to Sanctions Screening without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the Sanctions Screening MCP server still maintained?
Sanctions Screening is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 21 September 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.