Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vosesoftware

ModelRisk MCP

Official
by vosesoftware
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to ModelRisk MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • excel-mcp-server

      shuncongci
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to automate Microsoft Excel tasks such as reading/writing cells, formatting, creating charts, and managing sheets through natural language using the Model Context Protocol.
      1
      Apache 2.0

    • QuantAnalyticsMCP

      sathanandhh
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Provides quantitative analytics and statistical inference for financial data, including Monte Carlo DCF valuation, risk metrics, and trend regression diagnostics, enabling natural language-driven financial analysis via Claude Desktop.
      MIT

    • ExcelMcp

      lpittman-blip
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to automate Microsoft Excel through natural language by driving the real Excel application via its COM API, so users can build and edit live workbooks — running Power Query refreshes, DAX measures, VBA macros, PivotTables, charts, tables, formatting, and range data operations while preserving existing formulas and formats.
      MIT

    • xlsx-audit-mcp

      koleharv
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Audits Excel workbooks by tracing cell dependencies and detecting circular references, volatile functions, and other formula risks, enabling natural-language audit queries on local files.
      4
      43 npm
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    B3.4/5.0

    Scored across 59 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    Descriptions are unusually rich and differentiate most tools, but several near-duplicate clusters create real selection risk: find_hard_coded_inputs vs discover_inputs (both surface candidate inputs), create_aggregate vs create_aggregate_mc, and a reporting cluster (build_executive_report vs build_drivers_report vs generate_executive_summary vs create_tornado_chart) that all touch sensitivity/dashboards. An agent will frequently have to read the full descriptions to pick correctly.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Names are overwhelmingly consistent snake_case verb_noun (list_modelrisk_inputs, run_simulation, fit_copula_to_data, get_tail_risk). Minor deviations like reverse_stress_test (no leading verb) and descriptive compounds (fit_all_data_and_wire, build_model_from_brief) break the pattern slightly but remain readable and predictable.

    Tool Count2/5

    59 tools is far beyond the well-scoped 3-15 range and above the 25+ 'too many' threshold, creating a heavy selection burden for an agent. The domain is genuinely broad (fitting, simulation, aggregation, copulas, reporting, auditing), so it is not trivially over-provisioned, but the overlap clusters show meaningful consolidation opportunities.

    Completeness4/5

    Lifecycle coverage is extensive: workbook open/close/list/save, read/write cells, input/output wrapping, distribution/copula/tail/time-series fitting, simulation, results and sample retrieval, sensitivity/tail-risk/backtest analysis, charting, auditing, and audit-log rollback. Minor gaps remain — no explicit unwrap/delete for VoseInput/VoseOutput or distribution nodes (only restore_cell via the audit log) and no tool to create a brand-new workbook from scratch.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessUnresponsive

    Resources