Qanvo Stock Screener

Email a screen (app)

qanvo_app_share_email

App only: emails the screen on display (top matches and a live link) to an address the user typed. 10 a day.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "query_id": "<query_id>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "qanvo_app_share_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes
`note`	No
`query_id`	Yes
`session_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent action, so the external-send nature is known. The description usefully adds the '10 a day' rate limit and 'App only' scope, which are not in the annotations. It stops short of noting that a sent email cannot be recalled.

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?

Two tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the 0% schema coverage it must compensate for.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutating, open-world tool with 4 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description omits parameter meaning and alternative tools. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the definition is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema coverage across 4 params, the description must carry the load. It only implicitly explains `to` ('an address the user typed') and leaves session_id, query_id, and note completely undefined in both schema and text.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: emails the currently displayed screen with top matches and a live link. 'App only' scopes it. However it never distinguishes itself from the sibling qanvo_app_share, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

'App only' and '10 a day' give some context and a limit, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus qanvo_app_share or the other share path. The agent gets no explicit selection criteria.

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

All Qanvo Stock Screener tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?