kookmin-stock

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fundamentals, market overview, news, stock quote, top gainers, and a composite recommendation. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a 'get_' prefix verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_fundamentals, get_market_overview). The exception is recommend_buys, which is still verb_noun but lacks the prefix, creating a minor inconsistency.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools covering fundamental data, market overview, news, quotes, top gainers, and a recommend feature, the count is well-scoped for a stock information server.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core stock information needs (fundamentals, quotes, news, top gainers, overview, and a composite recommendation). Minor gaps like historical prices or sector data are not critical for the stated purpose.
Average 3.9/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only lists outputs. It omits details like data source, update frequency, error handling, or whether values are real-time. It essentially repeats what the name suggests without added 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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. No extraneous information is included, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It lists return metrics but does not expand on acronyms (e.g., PER = Price-to-Earnings Ratio) or provide any usage context. It is acceptable for a simple tool but lacks depth.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no meaning beyond the parameter name 'ticker'. It does not specify format, example values, or domain constraints, leaving the agent with minimal guidance.
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 returns specific fundamental metrics (PER, PBR, EPS, BPS, ROE, dividend yield) for a given ticker. It uses a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'fundamentals', and the listed metrics distinguish it from sibling tools like get_stock_quote or get_market_overview.
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 alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for different scenarios, leaving the agent to infer context from name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'most recent' data but does not specify real-time vs delayed, caching, authentication requirements, or other side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a data retrieval tool.
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 extremely concise, using two sentences and a bullet point to convey purpose and parameter details. Every word is necessary, and the structure is front-loaded.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description adequately covers what data is returned and how to input the ticker. It could mention data source or latency, but overall it is sufficiently complete given the tool's low complexity.
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 description adds significant value beyond the schema by specifying the ticker parameter can be a 6-digit code or Korean name, including examples. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this is critical and well-done.
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?
The description clearly states it returns specific stock data (close, change percent, volume, PER, PBR) for a ticker. It distinguishes from siblings implicitly by the data fields, but no explicit differentiation is provided.
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 explains how to specify the ticker but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_fundamentals or get_market_overview. No when-not-to-use or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the output is a list of objects with specific fields, but does not mention if the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or edge cases (e.g., empty list on holidays). The description is factual but lacks depth on behavioral aspects beyond the basic function.
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 concise, using a clear docstring format with a one-line purpose followed by Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to parse. No redundant or extraneous information.
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 the tool's simplicity (two parameters with defaults) and the presence of an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is largely complete. It explains parameters, return format, and purpose. However, it could mention the ordering direction (descending) is already clear from the name, but no major gaps. A small addition like 'daily change percent' clarification is fine.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning: market is 'KOSPI' or 'KOSDAQ' (though schema has enum), and top_n range 1..50, which goes beyond the schema's default-only definition. This provides helpful context for parameter use, though the default values are already clear.
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 returns top N stocks ranked by daily change percent descending. The verb 'Return' and resource 'top N stocks' are specific. Compared to siblings like get_fundamentals or get_stock_quote, this tool's purpose is distinct and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly conveys what the tool does but does not explicitly specify when to use it (e.g., 'for identifying top gainers') or when to avoid it (e.g., 'use get_stock_quote for individual stock details'). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the positivityScore calculation and that results include matched keywords, offering some behavioral insight. However, it lacks disclosure on whether it's read-only, rate limits, error handling, or other side effects. No annotations to compensate.
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 concise (two sentences plus arg list), front-loaded with the purpose, and includes structured arg descriptions. No unnecessary content.
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 the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and key behavioral detail (positivityScore). It could mention limitations like article count or recency but remains fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing that query accepts ticker codes, Korean stock names, or free-text, and that top_n ranges from 1 to 20. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema types.
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 it returns recent Naver finance news headlines about a given query. It specifies a unique function not overlapping with siblings like get_fundamentals or get_stock_quote.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for news retrieval but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 that each entry includes a transparent scoreBreakdown and Korean rationale, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only or discuss side effects, but given the nature, it is reasonably transparent.
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 concise, starting with a clear purpose sentence, then providing details in a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or vague statements.
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 the tool's complexity as a composite, the description covers purpose, parameters, and output structure. An output schema exists to explain return values. Missing elements like rate limits or error handling are minor, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section explains market (enum), top_n (range 1-10), and criteria (optional override with fields). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, though details of criteria fields could be more explicit.
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 it is a composite buy-recommendation tool that combines top gainers, quotes, news positivity, and fundamentals into a ranked list. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_fundamentals or get_top_gainers which are single-purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. The composite nature implies it for recommendations, but no clear exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses return fields and date fallback; does not mention side effects but is a read operation.
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?
Concise with clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value; no redundant information.
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?
No output schema, but description details return structure (nested objects for kospi/kosdaq). Could mention read-only nature but overall adequate for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter with zero schema description coverage. Description fully explains its format and fallback behavior, adding essential meaning beyond bare schema.
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?
Clearly states it returns KOSPI and KOSDAQ index close, daily change percent, and trading value. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_stock_quote (individual stocks) and get_top_gainers.
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?
Specifies acceptable date formats ('today' or YYYY-MM-DD) and fallback behavior for non-business days. Implicitly guides when to use but lacks explicit alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Kookmin-University-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/JooSeunghyeon/Kookmin-University-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/JooSeunghyeon/Kookmin-University-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Kookmin-University-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/JooSeunghyeon/Kookmin-University-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/JooSeunghyeon/Kookmin-University-MCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JooSeunghyeon/Kookmin-University-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server