DebtStack MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.4
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: get_changes monitors debt structure changes, get_corporate_structure shows hierarchy, get_guarantors identifies guarantors, resolve_bond looks up specific bonds, search_bonds searches bonds by criteria, search_companies searches companies by characteristics, search_documents finds SEC filing sections, and search_pricing retrieves bond pricing. The descriptions clearly differentiate each tool's function, eliminating ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: get_changes, get_corporate_structure, get_guarantors, resolve_bond, search_bonds, search_companies, search_documents, and search_pricing. The verbs 'get', 'resolve', and 'search' are used appropriately and predictably, making the naming highly consistent and readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, this server is well-scoped for debt analysis, covering key areas like bond lookup, company screening, structure analysis, and document search. Each tool serves a specific, necessary function without redundancy, and the count is within the ideal 3-15 range for a focused domain.
Completeness4/5
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for debt analysis, including bond resolution, pricing, corporate structure, and document search. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tools for updating or deleting data (e.g., modifying bond entries) or advanced analytics like scenario modeling, but core workflows are well-supported and agents can work around these limitations.
Average 3.9/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on February 24, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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.
View related servers

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?
No annotations provided, and the description only states it is a search operation with no additional behavioral traits (e.g., authentication, rate limits, or side effects). The description relies on the tool name and common knowledge.
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?
Description is concise with two sentences and a list, but the list is incomplete (missing two enum values). Efficient but could be more accurate.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple search tool but lacks details on behavior like pagination, limits, or output structure. The miss in enum listing and no guidance on which search tool to use among siblings leaves gaps.
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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some usage context for section_type (listing part of the enum) and overall purpose, but does not significantly enhance understanding of each parameter beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states it searches SEC filing sections for specific terms, and provides examples of section types. However, the enum in the schema includes two additional types not listed in the description, slightly reducing completeness.
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?
Description mentions 'Use to find covenant language, credit agreement terms, or debt descriptions,' giving context but not explicitly differentiating from sibling tools like search_bonds or search_companies. No when-not-to-use guidance is 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?
The description lists what the tool returns (issuances, maturities, leverage changes, pricing) but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or disclose any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and missing explicit read-only status reduces 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 consists of two succinct sentences: the first defines purpose and returns, the second states use case. No unnecessary words, and key information 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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately covers return types with examples. However, it lacks explicit mention of read-only nature and handling of empty results or date validation. Overall, it is complete for a simple query tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, providing basic descriptions for 'ticker' and 'since'. The tool description adds context by linking the 'since' parameter to a date comparison, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 function: 'See what changed in a company's debt structure since a date,' with specific examples of returns. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_corporate_structure and get_guarantors, which focus on static structure or guarantees.
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 provides a use case: 'Use to monitor companies for material changes,' but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternatives. This implies usage without clear exclusions.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. Only states it returns pricing data; no mention of real-time vs. historical, rate limits, or idempotency. Lacks depth for 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?
Two sentences conveying source, return values, and use cases. No redundancy, front-loaded with key action and data source.
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?
Explains return fields despite no output schema. All parameters are documented. Lacks details on sorting, multiple ticker handling, or limitations, but sufficient for a straightforward search tool.
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 100% for all 4 parameters. The description adds context on output fields (price, YTM, spread) which helps interpret min_ytm. Slightly above baseline 3.
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 the tool retrieves bond pricing from FINRA TRACE, returns specific fields (price, YTM, spread), and provides use cases. Distinct from sibling tools like search_bonds.
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?
Provides two use cases ('find distressed bonds' and 'compare relative value') but does not mention when not to use or contrast with alternatives like search_bonds. Relies on implied context.
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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the search behavior (filtering) and provides an example, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what happens on no results, or any rate/pagination details. The example is helpful but limited.
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?
Two sentences plus a practical example. The first sentence immediately states the function, the second clarifies use cases, and the example concretely demonstrates usage. No filler words, every sentence serves a purpose.
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 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the search purpose and example usage but omits details about the result format, pagination (limit parameter hints at it), error behavior, or any side effects. For a search tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks comprehensive detail.
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 100% with each parameter having a clear description. The description summarizes the parameters in prose ('by ticker, sector, leverage ratio, and risk flags') and adds an example, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. The example illustrates usage but does not explain parameter interactions or value ranges.
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 the verb 'Search' and specifies the resource 'companies' with clear filtering dimensions (ticker, sector, leverage ratio, risk flags). It differentiates from siblings like 'search_bonds' and search_pricing' which target different entities, and provides an example that reinforces the purpose.
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 explicitly states three usage scenarios: 'find companies with specific characteristics, compare leverage across peers, or screen for structural subordination risk.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but the context from siblings implies when other search tools are appropriate.
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 provided, so description must fully convey behavioral traits. Indicates a read operation returning structural data. Lacks details on potential size, latency, or data freshness, which are important for an agent to decide if the call 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?
Two concise sentences: first states purpose and output content, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded effectively.
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 simple single-parameter input and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. Could be improved by noting any limits like hierarchy depth or response format, but overall sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.
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 100% with a clear parameter description for ticker. Description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 the tool retrieves the full corporate structure including hierarchy, entity types, and debt levels. Distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the focus on structural subordination and debt location.
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?
Provides explicit use case: 'Use to understand structural subordination and where debt sits in the org.' Does not exclude alternative tools but context signals list siblings that serve different purposes (e.g., get_guarantors for guarantees).
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 bears full burden. It implies a read operation ('Find') but does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs. Basic transparency is present but lacking depth.
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?
Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and immediately follow with usage guidance. No extraneous words; every sentence adds value.
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 required parameter and no output schema, the description covers essential purpose and usage. Could mention it is read-only, but annotations would handle that; overall complete.
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 100% with one parameter described as 'Bond CUSIP or identifier'. The description adds 'Pass a CUSIP or bond description' which is nearly identical. No new semantics beyond schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 finds entities that guarantee a bond, with verb 'find' and specific resource 'guarantors'. It distinguishes from siblings like search_bonds or get_corporate_structure which target different aspects.
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?
Usage context is given ('understand guarantee coverage and structural subordination risk'), providing clear when-to-use. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the purpose is distinct enough.
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 the full burden. The description implies a read-only search operation but does not explicitly state safety, authentication needs, or what happens with no results. It is minimally adequate as 'Search' suggests no side effects.
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?
Two sentences: one declarative statement of function and one with use cases and an example. No redundant words, front-loaded with key information. Highly concise.
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 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, typical use cases, and an example query. It does not describe the return format, but the example implicitly suggests bond results. For a search tool without output schema, this is nearly complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a summary of filters and an example query, but does not provide additional details beyond what the schema offers. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Search bonds by ticker, seniority, yield, spread, and maturity.' It uses a specific verb (Search) and resource (bonds), and distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve_bond or search_pricing by focusing on bond screening with multiple filters.
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 explicitly lists use cases: 'Use for yield hunting, finding high-yield opportunities, or analyzing maturity walls.' It provides an example. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings like search_pricing or search_documents.
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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the core function and input but does not disclose any behavioral traits like side effects, authorization needs, or return structure (no output schema). Moderate 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?
Two sentences with no waste. Includes a clear example. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.
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 well-rounded: specifies input types, action, and usage scenario. It could mention whether results are unique or multiple, but overall complete.
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 100% with a clear description of the 'query' parameter. The description adds value by providing examples ('RIG 8% 2027' or 'CUSIP 893830AK8') and clarifying acceptable formats, exceeding the base 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 'Look up a bond by CUSIP, ISIN, or description', specifying the verb (look up) and resource (bond). It differentiates from sibling tools like search_bonds by focusing on resolving partial identifiers to full details.
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 explicitly says 'Use when you have a partial bond identifier and need full details', providing clear guidance on when to use. It does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the context is sufficient.
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:

[![debtstack-python MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/debtstack-ai/debtstack-python/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/debtstack-ai/debtstack-python)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![debtstack-python MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/debtstack-ai/debtstack-python/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/debtstack-ai/debtstack-python)

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/debtstack-ai/debtstack-python'

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