Skip to main content
Glama
taewat07

STATA-MCP Repro

by taewat07

Related Servers

Alternatives to STATA-MCP Repro

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Connects AI agents to a local Stata installation, enabling execution of Stata code, data inspection, graph generation, and result verification through natural language interactions.
      749 PyPI
      87
      AGPL 3.0
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to invoke a local Stata installation, including a Windows Stata build under Wine on Linux and macOS, for regression analysis, econometrics, paper replication, and empirical research with command guards, resource monitoring, and automatic log capture.
      4
      2
      AGPL 3.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Provides a bridge between Stata statistical software and code editors like VS Code and Cursor, enabling users to run Stata commands directly from the editor, view output in real-time, and get AI-powered assistance with Stata coding.
      515
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables an agent to execute Stata do scripts or inline commands locally and retrieve structured results including status, error diagnostics, and output text for consumption by the model.
      1
      -
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Controls the Stata GUI through Windows Stata Automation COM, enabling do-file management, command execution, and data analysis within natural language workflows.
      12
      50 PyPI
      7
      MIT

    TDQS

    C2.5/5.0

    Scored across 22 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Active tools have distinct purposes across planning, project management, run lifecycle, data inspection, and output retrieval. Deprecated tools are clearly labeled with redirecting messages, so misselection is unlikely despite some overlap in names.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    All tools use snake_case, but there is a clear split: active tools favor object_verb naming (e.g., run_prepare, data_inspect) while deprecated tools use verb_object naming (e.g., write_dofile, read_file). This mixed pattern reduces readability, though deprecated markers mitigate confusion.

    Tool Count3/5

    The total of 22 tools is heavy, and 9 of them are deprecated, artificially inflating the surface. The active 13 tools form a well-scoped set, but the obsolete entries should be removed to bring the count into an ideal range.

    Completeness4/5

    The active tool chain covers the full reproducibility lifecycle: plan preparation and approval, project initialization, run preparation/execution/monitoring, and artifact retrieval. Minor gaps like lack of list operations for runs or projects are workable.

    Maintenance

    ActivityStale
    ResponsivenessNo issues