Skip to main content
Glama
cstillick

statefinance-mcp

by cstillick
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to statefinance-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • guardian-contributions-mcp

      cstillick
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      F
      maintenance
      MCP server for Oklahoma campaign finance data, enabling queries on combined pre-primary and continuing contributions, candidate flags, and more via natural language.
      13
      MIT

    • fec-mcp-server

      sh-patterson
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Query FEC campaign finance data — search candidates, track donations, analyze spending, and monitor Super PAC activity via the OpenFEC API.
      8
      9 npm
      4
      MIT

    • mcp-open-fec

      pipeworx-io
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Access Federal Election Commission campaign finance data through MCP tools. Enables querying OpenFEC data using natural language via ask_pipeworx or direct tool calls.
      7 npm
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    B3.2/5.0

    Scored across 9 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool serves a distinct purpose: donor history, candidate info, committee info, health check, contribution search, expenditure search, store stats, summary aggregates, and top donors. There is no ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    Tool names mix verb-noun patterns (get_candidate, search_contributions) with noun phrases (donor_history, summary, ping) and inconsistent styles. This lack of a consistent pattern reduces predictability.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a state finance data server. It covers essential queries without being overwhelming or too sparse.

    Completeness4/5

    The tools cover core workflows: lookup candidates, committees, donors, contributions, expenditures, and summaries. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no listing of all candidates or committees), but the surface is largely complete for a read-oriented server.

    Maintenance

    ActivityStale
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources