Bloomberg MCP Server

run_equity_screen

Executes a saved Bloomberg EQS equity screen by name, returning matching securities for GLOBAL or PRIVATE screens.

Instructions

Run a saved Bloomberg EQS equity screen (BLPAPI BeqsRequest).

Args: screen_name: Exact screen name as saved in the terminal. screen_type: GLOBAL for Bloomberg-published screens, PRIVATE for your own.

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": {
      "screen_name": "<screen_name>"
    },
    "name": "run_equity_screen"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`screen_name`	Yes
`screen_type`	No		GLOBAL

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names the underlying BLPAPI request, but does not state whether the call is read-only, that it requires Bloomberg entitlements/permissions, how unsaved or misspelled screen names behave, or any cost/latency profile of executing a screen.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by a short Args block for the two parameters; nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and both parameters are documented. What is missing is operational context an agent would want before invoking a terminal-backed screen: entitlement requirements and failure behavior for an unknown screen name.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: screen_name is defined as the exact name as saved in the terminal, and screen_type is given allowed values (GLOBAL for Bloomberg-published, PRIVATE for your own). It omits the default (GLOBAL) explicitly, which the schema supplies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Run a saved Bloomberg EQS equity screen', and even names the underlying API request (BLPAPI BeqsRequest). This is unmistakably distinct from the sibling data-retrieval tools like get_reference_data or get_intraday_bars.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'saved screen' (the screen must already exist in the terminal), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternative tools. The GLOBAL/PRIVATE note is parameter semantics rather than usage selection.

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

Deploy Server