Financial News and Notes MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| TUSHARE_TOKEN | Yes | Your Tushare API token from tushare.pro |
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 | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| api-clientD | ApiClient tool description |
| data-processorD | DataProcessor tool description |
| example_toolC | An example tool that processes messages |
| file-handlerD | FileHandler tool description |
| my-toolD | MyTool tool description |
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 5 tools
All tool names are generic and overlapping in meaning. 'api-client', 'data-processor', and 'file-handler' could easily be confused as performing similar data manipulation tasks. 'example_tool' and 'my-tool' are placeholder names with no distinct purpose.
Tool names use a mix of snake_case ('example_tool'), kebab-case ('api-client', 'data-processor', 'file-handler', 'my-tool'), and are inconsistent in style. No clear pattern or convention is followed.
With 5 tools, the count is not excessive, but the tools are so generic and lacking context that it is unclear if they are appropriate for any specific domain. The server's purpose is not evident from the names, making the scope seem ill-defined.
The tool set is severely incomplete for any discernible purpose. There are no specific financial news operations (e.g., fetch news, filter, analyze). The generic names suggest a lack of domain coverage, leaving agents without a clear workflow.