OFACScreen Sanctions Screening vs TokenSave

In-depth architectural comparison of the OFACScreen Sanctions Screening and TokenSave MCP servers. Compare execution transports, security boundaries, tool capabilities, quality scores, and ready-to-paste client installation snippets for Claude, Cursor, Windsurf, and VS Code.

Which MCP Server Should You Choose?

O

Choose OFACScreen Sanctions Screening when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Developer Tools domain.
• You prefer remote streaming HTTP/SSE transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore OFACScreen Sanctions Screening Details

Choose TokenSave when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Developer Tools domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore TokenSave Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	O OFACScreen Sanctions Screening Developer Tools	TokenSave Developer Tools
Summary	Screen names against OFAC SDN and 7 more global sanctions lists. Free, no account required.	Code intelligence for 15+ languages: semantic graph queries instead of file reads. 37 MCP tools.
Category & Scope	Developer Tools	Developer Tools

Tools & Capabilities Breakdown

Ready-to-Paste Client Configurations

Paste either (or both) of these JSON server blocks into your client config file (e.g. claude_desktop_config.json or ~/.cursor/mcp.json).

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "ofacscreen-sanctions-screening": {
      "url": "https://www.ofacscreen.com"
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "tokensave": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@colbymchenry/codegraph"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons