Skip to main content
Glama
quality-screener

Quality Screener MCP Server

Related Servers

Alternatives to Quality Screener MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Provides comprehensive stock screening capabilities through Yahoo Finance. Enables LLMs to screen stocks based on technical, fundamental, and options criteria, with support for watchlist management and result storage.
      4
      48
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Provides AI assistants with market screening, analysis, and scoring across stocks, crypto, and forex, enabling natural language queries for trading insights.
      4
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      F
      maintenance
      Provides derived financial intelligence for AI agents, including insider activity analysis, earnings surprises, institutional moves, stock screening with a proprietary composite value score, and macro indicators.
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      F
      maintenance
      Provides financial data and market filings via Streamable HTTP tools. Enables AI agents to resolve equity entities, fetch SEC filings, compare institutional holders, and export finance receipts.
      -
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI clients to analyze stocks and get scored BUY/HOLD/SELL assessments with technical and fundamental data for Indian (NSE/BSE) and US markets.
      -
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to analyze stocks, screen markets, compare peers, read earnings calls, and track sector rotations using live financial data from Financial Modeling Prep.
      21
      PolyForm Noncommercial 1.0.0

    TDQS

    A3.5/5.0

    Scored across 23 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools map to a distinct resource/action (scores queries, history, systems CRUD, tickers/filters), and the descriptions clearly separate custom score computation from canned score lookups. A few pairs overlap conceptually, such as scores_list vs scores_top or auth_status vs account_profile, but their output shapes and inputs make them distinguishable.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Tool names are predominantly snake_case and follow a resource-prefix pattern like scores_*, systems_*, history_*, and tickers_*. Minor deviations such as score_compute (singular vs the plural scores_* family), screen_share (noun_verb rather than resource_verb), and the non-action names auth_status/health keep it from being fully consistent.

    Tool Count3/5

    At 23 tools the surface is heavy and falls in the borderline 16-25 range; some tools like scores_top, scores_for_tickers, and history_top overlap with list/batch operations and could be consolidated. The broad scope (auth, scores, screens, systems, history) justifies most of the count, but it is not tight.

    Completeness4/5

    Core workflows are well covered: score retrieval, custom score computation, saved-system CRUD, screen sharing, filters, tickers, history, and health/auth. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to fetch a shared screen by slug and no direct score-comparison tool, but agents can work around these without dead ends.

    Maintenance

    ActivityActive
    ResponsivenessUnresponsive