mcp-monte-carlo
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| forecast_asset_monte_carloA | Run a forward Monte Carlo forecast of an asset's future price distribution. |
| inspect_asset_modelA | Inspect the EGARCH + skewed-t model fit for a ticker WITHOUT simulating paths. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have fully distinct purposes: one generates forward Monte Carlo forecasts, while the other inspects model fit without simulating. Each description explicitly states when to use it and when not to, so there is no realistic ambiguity.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb-first snake_case pattern: forecast_asset... and inspect_asset.... The shared '_asset_' segment reinforces that they operate on the same domain, and there is no mix of naming conventions.
Two tools is on the low edge of what feels like a reasonable server surface. Each tool serves a necessary role in the workflow, but the server is minimal and could feel thin to agents expecting additional financial utilities.
For the stated purpose, the core workflow is covered: fit/inspect the model and run forecasts. There is no obvious dead end for the main Monte Carlo use cases, though a direct historical data or backtesting tool would make the surface more complete.