SanctionScreen vs Cryptair MCP Server

In-depth architectural comparison of the SanctionScreen and Cryptair MCP Server 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?

S

Choose SanctionScreen 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 SanctionScreen Details

Choose Cryptair MCP Server 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 Cryptair MCP Server Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	S SanctionScreen Developer Tools	Cryptair MCP Server Developer Tools
Summary	Screen counterparties and enrich companies for AI agents — sanctions checks, cited sources.	Tamper-evident attestation tools for AI agents — on-chain receipts on Hedera Hashgraph mainnet.
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": {
    "sanctionscreen": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "sanctionscreen"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "cryptair-mcp-server": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@cryptair/mcp-server"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons