Vala-Fi MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.3
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: profile lookup, path discovery, competitor/customer lists, supply chain traversal, sector subgraph, and exposure analysis. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_company_profile, find_path). The naming is predictable and clear.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is well-scoped for a knowledge graph API, covering essential queries without being overwhelming. Each tool earns its place.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers all typical query needs for a company relationship graph: profile, competitors, customers, supply chain, path finding, sector view, and risk analysis. No obvious gaps.
Average 4.1/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
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
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that results come from SEC 10-K filings and include citation evidence, which is good. However, it does not mention potential limitations like data recency, pagination, or read-only behavior.
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 three sentences plus an example, all front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: purpose, source, evidence, example. No unnecessary words.
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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains the output (customers with citation evidence) and the data source. Could mention limitations like only covering SEC filings, but overall sufficient.
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?
The schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explicitly describe the parameter 'ticker'. The example shows usage with 'TSM', implying it is a stock ticker, but no formal definition is given. The description should compensate by explicitly stating the parameter meaning.
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 states 'Get all known customers of a company' which is a specific verb+resource. It elaborates on the source (SEC 10-K filings) and provides an example. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_competitors and get_supply_chain.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it for customer relationships. Alternatives like get_competitors are not mentioned, but the tool name provides distinction.
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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the source and example output but lacks details on error handling, input validation, authorization needs, or limitations (e.g., only US companies from SEC filings). The example helps, but more context is needed for thorough 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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, source, and example. No unnecessary text.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the source and provides an example output format. However, it could mention potential empty results or ticker requirements for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the 'ticker' parameter. The example uses 'AAPL' to imply it's a stock ticker, but the description does not explicitly define 'ticker' or its valid format. This provides marginal added value beyond the 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all known competitors of a company.' It specifies the data source (SEC 10-K filings) and provides a concrete example (AAPL -> Microsoft, Samsung, Google). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_customers or get_supply_chain.
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 when to use the tool (to retrieve competitors) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives. While the sibling list exists, no direct comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool uses supplier, customer, and competitor relationships and returns the shortest path via an example. However, it does not specify what happens if no path exists, if multiple paths exist, or performance implications. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 and an example. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and the example adds concrete understanding without extraneous content. Every sentence is useful and earn its place.
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 no output schema, moderate complexity, and simple parameters, the description covers the core functionality and relationships. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, and assumptions (e.g., case sensitivity). It is adequate for a basic agent but incomplete for reliable autonomous invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not formally define ticker_a and ticker_b beyond the example showing stock tickers. The example provides partial meaning, but lacks explicit format or constraint details. The description adds some value for interpretation but insufficiently compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
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 finds the shortest path between two companies in a knowledge graph using supplier, customer, and competitor relationships. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_competitors (direct competitors) or get_supply_chain (full chain), making the purpose specific 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context ('Great for finding hidden connections') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The example illustrates a use case, aiding inference, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's functionality (identifies dependencies, returns score) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authorization requirements, or rate limits. The example hints at a read operation, but explicitness is lacking.
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 plus an example, with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose, then provides concrete illustration. Every word earns its place.
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 (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides adequate context. The example clarifies the output format. However, it could mention any limitations (e.g., only US stocks) or default behavior.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for the 'ticker' parameter, but the description adds meaning by contextualizing it as a company ticker for supply chain analysis. The example 'AAPL' reinforces this. While not exhaustive, it adds significant value beyond the raw 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?
The description clearly states the tool provides 'supply chain exposure and concentration risk analysis', identifies shared suppliers/customers, flags single-source dependencies, and returns an exposure score. The example with ticker 'AAPL' further clarifies the scope, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_supply_chain or get_competitors.
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 use when supply chain risk analysis is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_supply_chain for raw lists, get_competitors for competition). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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 carries full burden. It discloses the paid tier requirement and that it returns all companies and edges, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, or potential side effects. As a read-only operation, the disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 with a clear summary, a critical note, structured parameter list, and an example. Every sentence adds value, and the layout is easy to scan.
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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and a key limitation (paid tier). It lacks details on response format or error handling, but for this tool's complexity, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.
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%, but the description includes an Args section with example values for sector and clarifies that relationship_types is an optional comma-separated filter. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only provides parameter names and 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 the tool retrieves the full relationship subgraph for a sector, using 'Get' as the verb and specifying the resource as 'full relationship subgraph' for a sector. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual companies (get_company_profile, get_supply_chain) or path finding (find_path).
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 notes a prerequisite ('requires a paid tier') and provides an example usage. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, the context ('entire sector') implies it's for sector-level analysis, and sibling tools are clearly for different scopes.
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 carries full burden. It clearly describes the tool as a read operation returning basic information, which is adequate for a simple lookup. However, it does not disclose any potential errors, prerequisites, or side effects, but given the straightforward nature, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 plus an example, no wasted words. It front-loads the action and key information, making it easy to scan.
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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, input format, return fields, and usage context. It provides an example, which is complete for a lookup 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?
The sole parameter `ticker` has 0% schema description coverage, but the description adds essential meaning by explaining it is a ticker symbol and providing an example ('AAPL'). This fully compensates for the missing schema detail, making the parameter semantics 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('company profile') and specifies the input ('by ticker symbol'). It lists the returned fields (name, sector, industry, country, exchange) and provides an example, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_competitors or get_supply_chain.
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 states 'Use this to look up any company in the graph,' giving clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools cover different functionalities, making the usage guidance clear enough.
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, but the description discloses traversal behavior, citation evidence, and free tier limitations. No contradictions.
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?
The description is structured with sections, but slightly verbose. It includes example and argument details, all relevant.
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 3 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers everything: what it does, parameters, example, return evidence, and constraints.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains each parameter: ticker, hops, direction, including defaults, example, and constraints.
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 purpose: 'Get the supply chain for a company' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_customers by covering both directions.
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 when to use this tool (for supply chain traversal) and gives an example, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with 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:

[![vala-fi-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/academicnair009/vala-fi-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/academicnair009/vala-fi-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![vala-fi-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/academicnair009/vala-fi-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/academicnair009/vala-fi-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/academicnair009/vala-fi-mcp'

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