bse-mcp

get_peers

Retrieve BSE peer companies for a given scrip code, including LTP, change %, PE, PB, EPS, revenue, PAT, OPM, NPM, and 52-week range for comparison.

Instructions

BSE's peer group for a scrip: each peer's code, LTP, change %, PE, PB, EPS, revenue and PAT (Rs Cr), OPM, NPM, 52-week range and the quarter those results are from.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "scripcode": "<scripcode>"
    },
    "name": "get_peers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scripcode`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the data source (BSE) and returned metrics, but omits read-only confirmation, authentication requirements, rate limits, and data freshness or pagination behavior.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the tool's purpose. However, the long enumeration of return fields is largely redundant because an output schema already exists, adding length without proportional value.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and data source. It still leaves the parameter format undocumented and gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like get_financials.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter. The phrase 'for a scrip' loosely connects to 'scripcode', but no format, syntax, or example is given, so the description does little to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

The description states a clear resource ('BSE's peer group for a scrip') and enumerates the exact fields returned, which distinguishes it from general quote or financials tools. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description only says what the tool returns; it gives no when-to-use condition, no when-not-to-use exclusions, and no alternative sibling tools to consider. Usage is implied at best, with no explicit guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server