CheckMCP
‹ directory
55MCP SCORE
D

tickdb-market-data

https://mcp.tickdb.ai/
43 tools~10.0k tok/req0% annot.proto 2024-11-05
View public page ›
Xin
Raw JSON ›

Score by pillar

Security ·20100
Tool design ·1812
Schemas / desc ·1646
Reliability ·1450
Context-cost ·1259
Compliance ·1245
Coverage ·870

reliability: LOW (T1 single-shot, not credited - requires T3 >=24h)

Context-cost

10.0ktokens for tools/list

Paid on every request. With 43 tools (>p95), a tool-sprawl signal that degrades tool selection.

this server10.0k
median≈ 3k

MCP primitive coverage

the quality score covers tools
43
Tools
0
Resources · none
0
Prompts · none

Why this score — causal attribution

Each penalty: measure → mechanism → effect → Δscore.

Tool design · HIGH−15.8

43 outils (≥p95) → too many tools saturate the agent's tool-selection space → ↑ taux d'appel au mauvais outil

Schemas / desc · HIGH−5.4

31% typed+described params → schema = the contract the agent fills in → more malformed calls

Compliance · MEDIUM−3.6

0 declared annotations → destructiveHint/openWorldHint missing -> worst-case defaults → the tool is treated as destructive & open-world by clients

Compliance · MEDIUM−1.6

proto 2024-11-05 (4 rev. behind 2025-11-25) → outdated protocol version → recent features unavailable, recent clients weakened

Compliance · MEDIUM−1.2

capability 'resources' declared but resources/list empty → capabilities inconsistent with real behavior → clients misled

Compliance · MEDIUM−1.2

capability 'prompts' declared but prompts/list empty → inconsistent capabilities → clients misled

Suggested composite optimizations

get_report_calendar, get_dividend_calendar, get_split_calendar, get_ipo_calendar → calendar (outil unique avec param `action`, ou sous-serveur namespacé)
get_kline_latest, get_financials_latest, get_segments_latest, get_valuation_latest → latest (outil unique avec param `action`, ou sous-serveur namespacé)
get_financials_latest ↔ get_financials_ttm, get_dividends ↔ get_dividends_ttm, get_report_calendar ↔ get_ipo_calendar → renommer pour distinguer

Badge — paste it in your README

MCP Score badge — tickdb-market-data[![MCP Score](https://checkmcp.dev/badge/mcp-tickdb-ai.svg?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmcp.tickdb.ai%2F)](https://checkmcp.dev/report?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmcp.tickdb.ai%2F)
Own this server?Get verified — fresh re-audit, badge if you pass ›

About tickdb-market-data — FAQ

Is the tickdb-market-data MCP server safe to use?+
CheckMCP audited tickdb-market-data and gave it an MCP Score of 55/100 (grade D) — weak — significant issues; review the findings before trusting it with sensitive data or tools. The audit runs an OWASP MCP Top 10 security pass (tool poisoning, hardcoded secrets, command injection, the lethal trifecta) against the live endpoint; see the per-pillar breakdown and the "why this score" attribution on this page, and re-audit anytime at checkmcp.dev.
What is the MCP Score of tickdb-market-data?+
tickdb-market-data scores 55/100 (grade D) on CheckMCP's vendor-neutral audit across six weighted pillars — security, tool design, schemas, context-cost, compliance and coverage — with reliability measured and shown but not yet credited.
How many tools does tickdb-market-data expose, and what is its context cost?+
tickdb-market-data exposes 43 tools, and its tools/list response costs roughly 10.0k tokens — paid on every request your agent makes to it. Lower is better for your context budget.
How was tickdb-market-data scored?+
By probing the live MCP endpoint (https://mcp.tickdb.ai/), inspecting its tools, schemas and protocol compliance, running an OWASP MCP Top 10 security pass, and measuring the token cost of tools/list — then attributing every penalty as measure → mechanism → effect. The methodology is open: checkmcp.dev/#methodology.