F
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceAn MCP server that enables interaction with Google Sheets through natural language, allowing users to create, read, update, and manage spreadsheet data via the Google Sheets API v4.
-
sheets-finance-mcp
Provides tools for searching, building, and describing SheetsFinance formulas to retrieve financial market and company data in Google Sheets.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@sheets-finance-mcpsearch for gross margin metric"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
sheets-finance-mcp
MCP server for the SheetsFinance formula catalog.
This package exposes three tools:
sf_search: search metrics/functions and get rankedmetric_idcandidates.sf_formula: build validated SheetsFinance formulas from ametric_idor explicit function/category/metric fields.sf_describe: inspect category/function metadata, metric lists, and examples.
What Is SheetsFinance?
SheetsFinance is a Google Sheets add-on for financial market/company data retrieval using spreadsheet formulas.
Related MCP server: google-sheets-mcp
Installation
From this package directory:
pip install -e .Run as a module:
python -m sheets_finance_mcpOr via console script (installed by pyproject.toml):
sheets-finance-mcpClaude Code MCP Config
{
"mcpServers": {
"sheetsfinance": {
"command": "python",
"args": ["-m", "sheets_finance_mcp"]
}
}
}Tool Reference
Tool | Purpose | Typical Next Step |
| Find matching metrics/functions | Use returned |
| Construct a formula string (single or multi-symbol) | Paste formula in Sheets |
| Inspect category/function metrics and options | Pick a metric/function for |
Example Workflow
Search for a metric:
sf_search(query="gross margin")Build a formula from the selected metric id:
sf_formula(symbol="AAPL", metric_id="SF.ratios.grossProfitMargin")Inspect a category/function when needed:
sf_describe(target="income")
Available Tools
3 toolssf_describeC
Describe all metrics for a category or non-SF function.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, if it has side effects, or any behavioral traits. The phrase 'describe all metrics' implies a fetch operation but lacks confirmation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At only one sentence, the description is short but under-specified. It lacks key details, so it is not effectively concise; it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description should explain the return value or usage context. It does neither, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter 'target' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not clarify what values it accepts (e.g., examples of categories or non-SF functions). No added meaning beyond type string.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Describe all metrics for a category or non-SF function' includes a verb ('Describe') and a resource ('metrics'), but the terms 'category' and 'non-SF function' are vague and not defined. It distinguishes from siblings but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sf_formula or sf_search. There is no context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
sf_formulaC
Build and validate a SheetsFinance formula for SF() or non-SF functions.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | ||
| metric | No | all | |
| symbol | Yes | ||
| options | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| function | No | SF | |
| metric_id | No | ||
| extra_args | No |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Build and validate', but does not mention whether the tool modifies data, requires specific permissions, or has limits. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it omits critical information. It is not well-structured as it lacks details needed for effective tool use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It does not provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly, even with an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no explanation of any of the 8 parameters, despite 0% schema description coverage. The agent is left to infer meaning from parameter names alone, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool builds and validates SheetsFinance formulas, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sf_describe and sf_search which likely have different purposes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about when to build formulas versus describing or searching, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
sf_searchB
Search SheetsFinance metrics/functions and return ranked metric matches.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only says 'ranked metric matches' but does not clarify ranking criteria, read-only nature, potential side effects, or limits. Does not disclose if it's a safe read operation or requires special permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is efficient but too terse; it omits crucial details that could fit in a second sentence without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description leaves many unknowns: nature of ranking, pagination behavior, result format, error conditions. For a search tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema shows 'query' and 'limit' but description provides no extra meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify query syntax, limit's role, or defaults. It merely implies search but no details.
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?
Description clearly states it searches SheetsFinance metrics/functions and returns ranked matches. Differentiates from sibling tools sf_describe and sf_formula, which likely serve descriptive and formula-specific purposes.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives, but the name and description imply it's for searching. Lacks guidance on when not to use or compare to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
3 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
sf_describe - First observed
sf_formula - First observed
sf_search
TDQS
B3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: describing metrics, building/validating formulas, and searching. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'sf_verb' pattern (sf_describe, sf_formula, sf_search), making them easy to predict.
Tool Count4/5
Three tools is a reasonable minimal set for the domain, though slightly thin; could benefit from one or two additional tools.
Completeness4/5
Covers the core needs of exploring, building, and searching finance formulas. Missing a 'list categories' tool but minor gap.
Maintenance
ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessSyncing
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
MCP server for stocksense-ai documentation, generated by doc2mcp.
This MCP server enables users to perform scientific computations regarding linear algebra and vect…
MCP server for querying Forkast documentation
Token-free MCP server for structured RevoGrid Core, Pro, and Enterprise knowledge retrieval.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceMCP server for Google Sheets - read, write, and query spreadsheet data.1782MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for interacting with Google Sheets, providing tools to list sheets, read data from cell ranges, and write data to cell ranges.33MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceOfficial MCP server for the FinancialReports API. Provides direct access to regulatory filings, financial data, and corporate information from listed companies worldwide via 15 curated tools.2MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/henrysouchien/sheets-finance-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server