Skip to main content
Glama
forest-USTC

FeatureLens Research

Official
by forest-USTC
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to FeatureLens Research

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • periscope-mcp

      NLY22
      A
      license
      C
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Gives any MCP client 27 tools for turning scattered feeds, forums, and media into a persistent, searchable evidence corpus, so an agent can search and import evidence, verify claims with independent-source counting and citation checks, and run multi-round research that produces cited, revisable reports. It also supports adaptive retrieval widening, tiered evidence where only author-written sections count as sources, and honest degradation when no LLM key is available.
      27
      MIT

    • Scholar Library

      SAKURAfan1023
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables locally-first literature research through an MCP host by collecting sources, parsing documents, retrieving evidence, validating citations, and exporting research records in multiple formats.
      38
      MIT

    • investment-agent

      wst1234566
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Provides a suite of MCP tools for evidence-grounded investment research, including time-bounded search of reports and news, thesis verification against subsequent events, market response calculations, and generation of validated research briefs.
      9
      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

    A3.5/5.0

    Scored across 25 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Tools target mostly distinct resources/actions, and descriptions carefully differentiate e.g. add_verification (plan) vs record_verification (outcome) and capture_document_chunk vs capture_node vs add_evidence. However, the three evidence-capture tools and evidence/get overlap conceptually, which could still cause misselection without careful reading.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools share the research_ prefix and use snake_case throughout, giving a predictable family. The convention is mostly verb_noun, but a few are noun-only (research_evidence, research_doctor, research_document_chunks), a minor deviation.

    Tool Count3/5

    25 tools sits at the heavy boundary flagged by the rubric; the lifecycle (archive/unarchive/delete/undelete/backup/restore) adds several low-traffic tools. The count is defensible for a full research-workflow domain but leans bloated.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers a full research lifecycle: create/get/update/list, archive/delete with recovery, backup/restore, analysis, document import, evidence, claims, verification, and reporting. Gaps remain in per-item editing/removal (no update/delete for evidence or claims), which agents may need to work around.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources