Search Stock News MCP Server
🔌与 Cline、Cursor、Claude Desktop 和任何其他 MCP 客户端兼容!
搜索股票新闻 MCP 与任何 MCP 客户端无缝协作
模型上下文协议 (MCP) 是一种开放标准,使 AI 系统能够与各种数据源和工具无缝交互,促进安全的双向连接。
搜索股票新闻 MCP 服务器提供:
通过 Tavily API 提供实时股票新闻搜索功能
多个可定制的搜索查询模板
可配置的搜索参数和过滤
特定域的内容过滤
使用 TypeScript 进行类型安全操作
先决条件🔧
在开始之前,请确保您已:
Tavily API 密钥
Claude Desktop、Cursor 或任何兼容 MCP 的客户端
Node.js(v16 或更高版本)
已安装 Git(仅在使用 Git 安装方法时才需要)
Related MCP server: Tavily News Search MCP Server
搜索股票新闻 MCP 服务器安装⚡
使用 NPX 运行
npx -y search-stock-news-mcp@latest通过 Smithery 安装
要通过 Smithery 自动为 Claude Desktop 安装 Search Stock News MCP Server:
npx -y @smithery/cli install search-stock-news-mcp --client claude配置 MCP 客户端 ⚙️
配置 Cline 🤖
在 Cline 中设置 Search Stock News MCP 服务器的最简单方法是通过市场:
在 VS Code 中打开 Cline
点击侧边栏中的 Cline 图标
导航至“MCP 服务器”选项卡
搜索“搜索股票新闻”并点击“安装”
出现提示时,输入您的 Tavily API 密钥
或者,在 Cline 中手动配置服务器:
打开 Cline MCP 设置文件:
# For macOS:
code ~/Library/Application\ Support/Code/User/globalStorage/saoudrizwan.claude-dev/settings/cline_mcp_settings.json
# For Windows:
code %APPDATA%\Code\User\globalStorage\saoudrizwan.claude-dev\settings\cline_mcp_settings.json添加搜索股票新闻服务器配置:
{
"mcpServers": {
"search-stock-news-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "search-stock-news-mcp@latest"],
"env": {
"TAVILY_API_KEY": "your-api-key-here"
},
"disabled": false,
"autoApprove": []
}
}
}配置光标🖥️
要在 Cursor 中设置搜索股票新闻 MCP 服务器:
打开游标设置
导航至“功能”>“MCP 服务器”
点击“+ 添加新的 MCP 服务器”按钮
填写以下信息:
名称:“search-stock-news-mcp”
类型:“命令”
指令:GXP5
配置 Claude 桌面🖥️
对于 macOS:
touch "$HOME/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json"
open -e "$HOME/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json"对于 Windows:
code %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json添加服务器配置:
{
"mcpServers": {
"search-stock-news-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "search-stock-news-mcp@latest"],
"env": {
"TAVILY_API_KEY": "your-api-key-here"
}
}
}
}使用示例🎯
基本股票新闻搜索:
{
"symbol": "AAPL",
"companyName": "Apple Inc.",
"maxResults": 10
}使用过滤器的高级搜索:
{
"symbol": "TSLA",
"companyName": "Tesla Inc.",
"maxResults": 20,
"searchDepth": "advanced",
"minScore": 0.6
}自定义域名搜索:
{
"symbol": "MSFT",
"companyName": "Microsoft Corporation",
"includeDomains": ["reuters.com", "bloomberg.com"]
}故障排除🛠️
常见问题
未找到服务器
验证 npm 安装
检查配置语法
确保 Node.js 已正确安装
API 密钥问题
验证您的 Tavily API 密钥是否有效
检查配置中的 API 密钥是否正确设置
确保 API 密钥周围没有空格或引号
搜索结果问题
检查搜索参数是否在有效范围内
验证域名过滤器的格式是否正确
确保公司名称和符号准确
致谢✨
MCP 规范的模型上下文协议
克劳德桌面版的 Anthropic
Tavily 用于新闻搜索 API
执照
麻省理工学院
Available Tools
2 toolsgeneral-searchC
Perform a general web search using Tavily API
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxResults | No | Maximum number of results to return | |
| minScore | No | Minimum relevance score threshold | |
| query | Yes | Search query | |
| searchDepth | No | Search depth level |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Perform a general web search' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what constitutes a 'general' versus specialized search. The mention of Tavily API is helpful but insufficient.
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 - a single sentence that communicates the core purpose efficiently. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what results look like, how relevance scoring works, what the searchDepth levels mean, or provide any context about the Tavily API's capabilities or limitations.
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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain what 'general web search' means in relation to the parameters like searchDepth levels or score thresholds. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('Perform a general web search') and specifies the resource/API used ('using Tavily API'), which distinguishes it from generic search tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'search-stock-news', which appears to be a more specialized search tool.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of its sibling tool 'search-stock-news' or any other search tools, nor does it indicate appropriate contexts or exclusions for using this general web search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search-stock-newsC
Search for stock-related news using Tavily API
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companyName | Yes | Company name (e.g., Apple Inc.) | |
| maxResults | No | Maximum number of results to return | |
| minScore | No | Minimum relevance score threshold | |
| searchDepth | No | Search depth level | |
| symbol | Yes | Stock symbol (e.g., AAPL) |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Tavily API but doesn't describe key behaviors such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the search results include (e.g., headlines, summaries, sources). For a search tool with external API dependencies, this is a significant gap.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the API name for context. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 the complexity of a search tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of articles with fields), how results are ordered, or any behavioral traits like pagination or API constraints. For a tool with rich input schema but missing output and behavioral context, it should do more.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples of how parameters interact or typical values). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb ('Search') and resource ('stock-related news'), and specifies the API used ('Tavily API'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'general-search' by focusing on stock-related content, though it doesn't explicitly mention this differentiation. The purpose is specific and actionable.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'general-search', nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
2 tool updates
v1.0.0- First observed
general-search - First observed
search-stock-news
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'general-search' is for broad web searches, while 'search-stock-news' is specifically for stock-related news. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, making it easy for an agent to select the appropriate tool based on the query context.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with hyphens: 'general-search' and 'search-stock-news'. They use the same naming convention throughout, making the set predictable and readable without any deviations or mixed styles.
With only two tools, the server feels under-scoped for a 'Search Stock News MCP Server'. While the tools cover general and stock-specific searches, the domain suggests potential for more operations like filtering, sorting, or retrieving detailed news, making the count too low for the apparent purpose.
The tool surface is significantly incomplete for a stock news server. It lacks essential operations such as filtering news by date, source, or stock ticker, retrieving trending news, or accessing detailed article content. This will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform comprehensive stock news analysis.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Real-time financial news for AI agents: search by ticker and source, with sentiment and entities.
The only News based AI MCP your agents will ever need — custom categories, global regions, and time-scoped results in one tool. We use multi-vector & sparse-hybrid search to search through thousands of articles across the world to find the exact news you're looking for.
GNews MCP — Global news search via GNews API (gnews.io)
Get access to real-time and historical news data including top headlines from global sources
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceThis MCP server performs multi-topic searches in business, news, finance, and politics using the Tavily API, providing high-quality sources and intelligent summaries.1MIT
- -licenseNot gradedqualityNot gradedmaintenanceA remote MCP server that enables searching for news articles on specific topics through the Tavily API without requiring authentication.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityFmaintenanceMCP server providing access to the GNews API for fetching news articles and headlines. Supports search and top headlines with advanced filtering by language, country, category, and date.1-
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceProvides live stock data and market news for financial analysis via any MCP-compatible AI app.2MIT