portfolio-signals
Server Details
Real-time stock quotes and technical signals: RSI, MACD, SMA crossovers via Yahoo Finance.
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.9/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: comparing returns, fetching current quotes, computing technical indicators, and generating a weekly digest. No overlap in functionality.
Almost all tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (compare_tickers, get_quote, get_technical_signals). weekly_digest deviates slightly as a noun_noun pair but still follows snake_case.
Four tools is well-scoped for a portfolio signals server. Each tool provides a distinct and useful action without redundancy or bloat.
Covers core signals tasks (quotes, technicals, comparisons, weekly summary) but lacks historical data retrieval, portfolio management, or advanced screening. Notable gaps exist for a comprehensive solution.
Available Tools
4 toolscompare_tickersBInspect
Compare total returns of multiple tickers over a period.
Args:
tickers: List of symbols, e.g. ['AAPL', 'MSFT', 'VOO'].
period: One of '1mo', '3mo', '6mo', '1y', '2y', '5y'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | 3mo | |
| tickers | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'compare total returns' but does not elaborate on data sources, normalization, or dividends. Minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two short paragraphs, front-loads the purpose, and avoids unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain return values but does not. Also lacks usage guidelines, making it incomplete for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by providing examples for tickers and listing valid period strings. However, it does not mention the default value for period.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool compares total returns of multiple tickers over a period. It distinguishes from siblings like get_quote and get_technical_signals by focusing on return comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention when not to use it or provide context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_quoteAInspect
Get the current quote for a stock/ETF ticker: price, day change, volume, and 52-week range.
Args:
ticker: Symbol like 'AAPL', 'MSFT', 'VOO'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (price, change, volume, range) but does not mention freshness, caching, or any side effects. For a read-only tool, this is minimally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with no wasted words. It uses a clear header and args section, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description adequately specifies the return values (price, change, volume, range). No additional context is necessary for a typical use case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'ticker' is explained with examples (e.g., 'AAPL', 'MSFT', 'VOO'), which adds meaning beyond the schema type. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates with clear usage guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets the current quote for a stock/ETF ticker and lists specific data points (price, day change, volume, 52-week range). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like compare_tickers and get_technical_signals by implying a basic fetch operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for a single ticker but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool compared to alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_technical_signalsAInspect
Compute technical indicators for a ticker: RSI(14), MACD(12,26,9), and SMA 50/200 relationships.
Returns measurements and standard threshold classifications only —
interpretation is left to the caller. Classifications used:
- rsi_zone: 'overbought' if RSI >= 70, 'oversold' if RSI <= 30,
else 'neutral' (standard Wilder thresholds)
- macd.vs_signal: MACD line position relative to its 9-period signal
line, including single-day crossovers
- moving_averages.sma_50_vs_200: 'golden_cross' if SMA50 > SMA200,
'death_cross' otherwise (standard definitions)
Args:
ticker: Symbol like 'AAPL', 'NVDA'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It thoroughly explains the outputs (measurements and classifications) and defines threshold rules for each indicator. However, it does not mention potential edge cases like invalid tickers or data latency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a front-loaded purpose sentence followed by detailed classification rules and a parameter note. It is concise enough but could be slightly tighter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what indicators are computed, how classifications work, and the parameter format. No gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a minimal line 'ticker: Symbol like 'AAPL', 'NVDA'' which adds examples but no additional constraints or format details. This is adequate but not rich.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool computes technical indicators for a specific ticker, listing RSI, MACD, and SMA relationships. It distinguishes from siblings like compare_tickers or get_quote by focusing on technical analysis for a single symbol.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_tickers. The description only explains what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
weekly_digestAInspect
One-call weekly portfolio report: 1-week and 1-month returns plus indicator readings for each holding. Ideal for a recurring 'weekly portfolio signals' check-in.
Args:
tickers: Portfolio symbols, e.g. ['AAPL', 'NVDA', 'VOO'].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tickers | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output (returns and indicators) but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or whether it is read-only. This is adequate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two main sentences plus an Args line. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does and how to provide input. It lacks details about output format or potential limitations, but it is fairly complete given its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates with an example and explanation: 'Portfolio symbols, e.g. ['AAPL', 'NVDA', 'VOO'].' This adds meaning to the tickers parameter, though it could specify constraints like max count or case sensitivity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it produces a weekly portfolio report with specific metrics (1-week and 1-month returns plus indicator readings). It distinguishes itself from siblings like compare_tickers, get_quote, and get_technical_signals by focusing on a portfolio-level summary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description suggests it is 'Ideal for a recurring weekly portfolio signals check-in,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.
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!