eiu-mcp-server
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@eiu-mcp-serverPull EIU annual GDP growth for the US, UK, and China from 2015 to 2030"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
eiu-mcp-server
A Model Context Protocol server that gives Claude (or any MCP-compatible LLM client) structured, token-efficient access to the EIU data API — around 200 countries and 320 economic indicator series, history and forecasts.
It exposes three tools:
Tool | Purpose |
| List available geographies and series, optionally filtered by keyword |
| Keyword search across the series catalogue (e.g. |
| Fetch data by country and series code, with frequency and date filters |
Reference data is fetched once per session and cached in memory, so browse and search cost no further API calls.
Prerequisites
EIU API Developer Portal access. This is not self-service. Email economicssupport@economist.com and ask for Developer Portal access. They will set up your account by hand. You need all three of: your portal email address, your portal password, and the API key shown in the portal.
uvinstalled on your machine. One-liner:curl -LsSf https://astral.sh/uv/install.sh | sh
You do not need to clone this repo or manage a virtual environment —
uvx handles everything from the git URL.
Related MCP server: EODHD MCP Server
Install
Claude Code
The one-line install, run from a folder whose .env holds your three EIU
values. The shell reads them, so the credentials never appear in your
conversation:
set -a; source .env; set +a
claude mcp add --scope user eiu \
-e EIU_API_KEY="$EIU_API_KEY" \
-e EIU_EMAIL="$EIU_EMAIL" \
-e EIU_PASSWORD="$EIU_PASSWORD" \
-- uvx --from git+https://github.com/joshua-bailey/eiu-mcp-server.git eiu-mcp-serverOr add the entry to .mcp.json by hand:
{
"mcpServers": {
"eiu": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"--from",
"git+https://github.com/joshua-bailey/eiu-mcp-server.git",
"eiu-mcp-server"
],
"env": {
"EIU_API_KEY": "${EIU_API_KEY}",
"EIU_EMAIL": "${EIU_EMAIL}",
"EIU_PASSWORD": "${EIU_PASSWORD}"
}
}
}
}Then restart Claude Code. The three eiu_* tools should appear under /mcp.
Claude Desktop
Same JSON snippet, placed under mcpServers in:
macOS:
~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.jsonWindows:
%APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
Claude Desktop does not expand ${VAR} references, so put the literal values
there instead.
Pinning a version
uvx installs the latest commit on main by default. To pin to a tagged
release, append @<tag> to the git URL, e.g.:
"git+https://github.com/joshua-bailey/eiu-mcp-server.git@v0.1.0"Environment variables
Variable | Required? | Purpose |
| Yes | Your EIU API key from the Developer Portal. |
| Yes | The email address your portal account uses. |
| Yes | Your portal password. |
All three are needed. The server logs in with the email and password to obtain a bearer token, then sends that token alongside the API key on every request. The token is cached in memory and refreshed before it expires.
Using it
Once the MCP is registered, ask Claude things like:
"Search EIU for current account balance series"
"What EIU series codes cover consumer prices?"
"Pull EIU annual GDP growth (DGDP) for the US, UK and China from 2015 to 2030"
"Show me EIU quarterly inflation forecasts for Brazil, Mexico and Chile"
Claude picks the right tool and calls it.
Codes
Geographies are ISO two-letter codes in capitals:
US,GB,CN,BR.Series are EIU's own short codes in capitals, e.g.
DGDP,DCPI. Useeiu_searchoreiu_browseto find them rather than guessing.Frequency is one of
Yearly,QuarterlyorMonthly.
eiu_get_data caps its response at 200 data points to stay token-efficient and
says so when it truncates. Narrow the date range or the country list to see the
rest.
API reference
The underlying API is documented at
developer.eiu.com/help/overview.
The server talks to https://api.eiu.com/v1.
Licence
MIT — see LICENSE. Applies to the wrapper code in this repository only. Dependencies retain their own licences. EIU data is a paid subscription and its terms of use apply independently of this wrapper.
Available Tools
3 toolseiu_browseA
Browse available EIU geographies and data series.
Call with no filter to see all available geographies/series. Use filter to narrow results by keyword.
Args: filter: Optional keyword (e.g. 'Brazil', 'GDP', 'inflation') show: 'geographies', 'series', or 'both' (default)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| show | No | both | |
| filter | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains what happens with no filter versus with a filter and describes the show options. It does not mention output format or pagination, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for that detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-organized: a summary line, short usage guidance, and a clean args list. Every sentence contributes value, with no repetition or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter browse tool, the description is complete. It covers all parameters, defaults, and core behavior, and the output schema exists to document return values. The lack of explicit sibling routing is the only minor omission, but the intended use is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates. It defines filter as an optional keyword with concrete examples, and show as selecting 'geographies', 'series', or 'both' with the default noted. This is meaningful semantic content beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Browse available EIU geographies and data series.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like eiu_get_data and eiu_search, which presumably retrieve or search data rather than browse the catalog.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear operational context: 'Call with no filter to see all available geographies/series. Use filter to narrow results by keyword.' It explains how to use the tool and the effect of each parameter, though it does not explicitly state when to prefer eiu_search or eiu_get_data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
eiu_get_dataA
Fetch EIU forecast/indicator data by country and series codes.
Use eiu_browse or eiu_search first to find valid codes.
Args: geography_codes: ISO 2-char codes (e.g. ['US', 'BR', 'CN']) series_codes: EIU series codes (e.g. ['DGDP', 'DCPI']) frequency: 'Yearly', 'Quarterly', or 'Monthly' min_date: Start date YYYY-MM-DD (default: 5 years ago) max_date: End date YYYY-MM-DD (default: 5 years ahead)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_date | No | ||
| min_date | No | ||
| frequency | No | Quarterly | |
| series_codes | Yes | ||
| geography_codes | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only fetch operation, states the prerequisite of finding valid codes first, and documents default date ranges and accepted frequency values. It could add error/rate-limit behavior, but the default date behavior and non-destructive nature are usefully conveyed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured. The high-level purpose is front-loaded, the prerequisite is stated in a single sentence, and the Args block is clean and easy to scan. No sentence is wasted or redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, return-value documentation is not needed. The description covers all five parameters, provides valid examples, explains the required discovery workflow, and states defaults. Everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains every parameter: ISO 2-char geography codes with examples, EIU series codes with examples, allowed frequency values, and date format/defaults for min_date and max_date. This is far beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('EIU forecast/indicator data') with clear scope by country and series codes. This distinguishes it well from the sibling tools eiu_browse and eiu_search, which are for finding codes rather than retrieving data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly explains the intended workflow: use eiu_browse or eiu_search first to find valid codes, then call this tool. This is clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives, leaving no ambiguity for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
eiu_searchA
Search EIU series by keyword in cached reference data.
Use this to find series codes before calling eiu_get_data.
Args: query: Search terms (e.g. 'GDP', 'consumer prices', 'exchange rate') limit: Max results (default 25, max 100)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It adds useful facts about cached reference data and the limit cap (max 100) beyond the schema, but it does not state read-only behavior, output characteristics, or error handling. Acceptable for a simple read-oriented search, but it is not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, a clear usage pointer, and a compact Args block. No redundant wording or filler; every sentence contributes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has an output schema to cover return values, and the description provides param details plus sequencing with eiu_get_data. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing the relationship to eiu_browse, but it contains the essential context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: query with concrete examples and limit with default and max. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though it could be more precise about the interpretation of 'limit' (number of results vs. something else).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: search EIU series by keyword in cached reference data. It also notes the downstream use (finding series codes before calling eiu_get_data), but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling eiu_browse, so purpose is clear but sibling distinction is left implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit guidance: 'Use this to find series codes before calling eiu_get_data.' This establishes when to use the tool relative to eiu_get_data, but it does not mention alternatives such as eiu_browse or exclusions, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
3 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
eiu_browse - First observed
eiu_get_data - First observed
eiu_search
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
eiu_browse and eiu_search both support keyword-based series discovery, so agents may be unsure which to call when looking up series codes. eiu_browse is broader because it also covers geographies, while eiu_search is narrowly focused on series, but the boundary is somewhat blurred. eiu_get_data is clearly distinct.
All tools share the eiu_ prefix and use lower_snake_case, making the naming pattern predictable. However, eiu_browse and eiu_search are bare verbs while eiu_get_data is verb_noun, which is a minor inconsistency.
Three tools is a reasonable, compact set for a browse/search/fetch data workflow. The count is appropriate, though eiu_browse and eiu_search overlap enough that the set could arguably be reduced to two tools.
The core workflow of discovering geographies and series, then fetching EIU data, is covered without dead ends. Minor gaps exist around metadata details or available date ranges, but agents can complete the primary task effectively.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Browse and query the EIA API v2 — electricity, petroleum, natural gas, coal, forecasts via MCP.
World Bank MCP — wraps the World Bank Data API v2 (free, no auth)
Macroeconomic and other official data from 170+ publishers, resolved from natural language with provenance.
INEGI MCP — Mexico's national statistics office (INEGI) Indicators API.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEconomic data MCP server that connects FRED, BLS, BEA, IMF, World Bank, and ECB to any MCP-compatible client, with built-in methodology rules to guide LLMs in selecting appropriate economic indicators.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables interaction with EOD Historical Data APIs, providing access to 75 read-only tools for financial data including fundamentals, news, screeners, and options via MCP transports.20MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables MCP-compatible clients to access Canadian statistical data from Statistics Canada via WDS and SDMX APIs, including search, download, and analysis capabilities.25131 PyPI6MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceExposes World Bank development data and country information via MCP resources and tools, enabling AI agents to query historical indicators and live API data.-