A
license-
qualityB
maintenanceAn open-source MCP server that screens stocks for Shariah compliance using auditable, versioned rules, returning separate verdicts per standard without merging them.
Last updated
1
Apache 2.0
daleel
by com.o11r
Server Details
Halal stock screening with receipts: every Sharia verdict cites its SEC filing. 5 methodologies.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- obedier/daleel
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- Daleel
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.1/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one explains the screening methodology, the other performs the actual screening. No overlap or ambiguity exists.
Naming Consistency4/5
Both names share the 'screen' root, but one uses a noun form (screening_methodology) and the other uses a verb phrase (screen_ticker). The pattern is not perfectly uniform but is predictable and readable.
Tool Count3/5
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin, though the scope is narrow and focused. This is borderline per the rubric.
Completeness4/5
The server covers the core workflow: explaining the methodology and executing a screening. Minor gaps like batch screening or historical results are not present but can be worked around.
Available Tools
2 toolsscreening_methodologyAInspect
Explain how Daleel screens stocks: data sources, the five scholarly methodologies with their thresholds, scoring, and fail-safe rules.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool will explain specific elements of the methodology (data sources, five methodologies, thresholds, scoring, fail-safes), which effectively communicates what the user will receive. It does not mention any side effects or access requirements, but for an explanation tool this is relatively complete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and then enumerates the content areas (data sources, methodologies, thresholds, scoring, fail-safes). Every phrase adds value with no unnecessary words.
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 (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and output contents. It provides enough information for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly avoids parameter details since there are none to document.
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 uses the explicit verb 'explain' and identifies the exact resource ('how Daleel screens stocks') and content coverage (data sources, five methodologies, thresholds, scoring, fail-safes). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling screen_ticker, which presumably executes screening rather than explaining it.
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 implies the tool should be used when the agent needs to understand or communicate the screening methodology. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like screen_ticker, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
screen_tickerAInspect
Screen a US-listed stock or ETF for Sharia (halal) compliance.
Returns the verdict (compliant / questionable / non_compliant /
not_screenable), a 0-100 score, the five-methodology audit matrix
(AAOIFI, DJIM, MSCI, S&P, FTSE), the purification percentage, and SEC
EDGAR filing citations for every number used.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists what the tool returns (verdict, score, audit matrix, purification percentage, citations) and clarifies the asset type (US-listed stock/ETF). It lacks mention of side effects or limitations, but for a read-only screening tool, this is above-average transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and the output details listed clearly. Every word earns its place, with no redundant filler or over-explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (verdict, score, matrix, purification, citations). It does not mention error handling, rate limits, or dependency on the methodology tool, but for a screening tool with one parameter, this is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is only one parameter, 'ticker', with no schema description. The description adds meaning by specifying it applies to US-listed stocks or ETFs, which partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage. It does not provide format examples or case sensitivity, but the single-parameter context is well addressed.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: screening US-listed stocks or ETFs for Sharia compliance. The verb 'screen' and resource 'US-listed stock or ETF' are specific, and the distinct output (verdict, score, audit matrix) differentiates it from the sibling 'screening_methodology'.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'screening_methodology'. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The only clue is the sibling name, but the description itself lacks any usage differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceMost trading signals are noise. AlphaAssay puts them on trial — deflated Sharpe, out-of-sample, leakage forensics — and returns signed pass/fail verdicts anyone can verify. Methodology audits, not investment advice.Last updated17Apache 2.0
- Flicense-qualityDmaintenanceReturns verified financial data (SEC EDGAR & FRED) with machine-readable citations. Guaranteed zero hallucinations for AI agents.Last updated
akyla-mcpofficial
Alicense-qualityBmaintenanceProvides as-reported US equity fundamentals, live quotes, financial statements, valuation comps, and a screener from SEC filings, with per-cell filing provenance for citations.Last updatedMIT
Try in Browser
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.