| Ecosystem | 1 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 12 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Implements a three-tier data model where Projects contain Tasks and Knowledge entities as distinct node types in Neo4j, with relationship edges defining containment and dependency chains. Uses Cypher query language for traversal and aggregation across the hierarchy, enabling agents to structure complex workflows with nested task dependencies and associated knowledge artifacts without flattening the organizational structure.
Unique: Uses Neo4j as the primary persistence layer with a three-tier node schema (Project, Task, Knowledge) rather than relational tables or document stores, enabling agents to reason about complex dependency graphs and perform relationship-aware queries without JOIN operations or denormalization.
vs alternatives: Outperforms relational databases for deep hierarchical queries and dependency traversal; more structured than document stores (MongoDB) for maintaining strict entity relationships and enabling graph-based reasoning by LLM agents.
Exposes project, task, and knowledge management operations as MCP tools with standardized input schemas and response formatting. Each tool (create, read, update, delete, list) maps to Neo4j service methods that validate inputs via Zod schemas, execute Cypher mutations/queries, and return structured JSON responses. Tools are discoverable by MCP clients and include detailed descriptions for LLM agent planning.
Unique: Implements MCP tools as a first-class integration pattern rather than REST endpoints or direct database access, allowing LLM agents to discover and invoke project/task/knowledge operations through the standard MCP protocol with automatic schema validation and response formatting.
vs alternatives: Simpler for LLM agents than REST APIs because tool schemas are self-documenting and validated by the MCP framework; more secure than direct database access because all operations go through typed tool handlers with input validation.
Implements consistent error handling with typed error classes (ValidationError, NotFoundError, DatabaseError, etc.) and structured logging using Winston or Pino. All errors include context (request ID, operation type, entity ID) and are logged with appropriate severity levels. HTTP responses include error codes and messages; MCP responses include error details in the response object.
Unique: Uses typed error classes and structured logging with request context propagation, enabling correlation of errors across multiple operations and layers without manual context threading.
vs alternatives: More informative than generic error messages because errors include context (request ID, entity ID, operation type); more actionable than unstructured logs because errors are categorized by type and severity.
Uses Zod to validate and parse environment variables at startup, ensuring all required configuration is present and correctly typed before the server starts. Supports configuration for database connection, server ports, authentication secrets, logging levels, and feature flags. Provides clear error messages if configuration is invalid or missing.
Unique: Validates all configuration at startup using Zod schemas, preventing the server from starting with invalid or missing configuration and providing clear error messages for misconfiguration.
vs alternatives: More robust than manual configuration parsing because Zod enforces type safety and constraints; faster to debug than runtime configuration errors because validation happens at startup.
Provides a single search interface that queries across all three entity types (Projects, Tasks, Knowledge) using Neo4j full-text indexes and optional semantic search via embeddings. Accepts a search query string, executes Cypher queries against indexed properties, and returns ranked results grouped by entity type with relevance scores. Supports filtering by project, status, and other metadata.
Unique: Unifies search across three distinct entity types (Projects, Tasks, Knowledge) in a single query using Neo4j's full-text index capabilities, with optional semantic search layer for conceptual matching beyond keyword overlap.
vs alternatives: More efficient than separate searches per entity type; leverages Neo4j's native indexing rather than external search engines (Elasticsearch), reducing operational complexity for small-to-medium deployments.
Implements a research workflow where an LLM agent iteratively formulates research questions, searches the knowledge base and external sources, synthesizes findings, and refines queries based on results. The tool manages conversation history, tracks research progress, and stores findings back into the Knowledge tier. Uses chain-of-thought reasoning to decompose complex research goals into sub-questions.
Unique: Implements research as an iterative, agent-driven process with feedback loops where the LLM refines search queries based on findings, rather than a single-shot search-and-summarize pattern. Integrates findings back into the Neo4j knowledge base as structured entities.
vs alternatives: More thorough than simple search-and-summarize because it enables agents to reason about gaps and refine queries; more autonomous than manual research because the agent drives the iteration loop without human intervention.
Exposes projects, tasks, and knowledge items as MCP resources (read-only data endpoints) that clients can subscribe to for real-time updates or fetch on-demand. Resources are formatted as text or JSON and include metadata about the entity, relationships, and child entities. Enables agents to maintain context about the current project/task state without invoking tools.
Unique: Implements MCP resources as a separate read-only interface alongside tools, allowing agents to fetch and subscribe to entity state without invoking mutation operations. Resources include relationship context (child tasks, associated knowledge) in a single fetch.
vs alternatives: More efficient than tool-based reads for context maintenance because resources can be cached and subscribed to; cleaner separation of concerns than mixing read/write in tools.
Maintains a request context (trace ID, agent ID, operation type) throughout the lifecycle of MCP operations, enabling correlation of related database mutations and tool invocations. Uses Node.js AsyncLocalStorage to propagate context without explicit parameter passing. Logs all operations with context metadata for debugging and audit trails.
Unique: Uses AsyncLocalStorage to propagate request context implicitly through the call stack, avoiding the need to thread context through every function signature. Enables correlation of distributed operations without explicit parameter passing.
vs alternatives: Cleaner than manual context threading because context is automatically available in any async operation; more efficient than request-scoped logging because context is stored once and accessed multiple times.
+4 more capabilities
Enables evaluation of AI systems' ability to perform chained mathematical operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, comparisons) across both structured tables and unstructured text extracted from SEC filings. The dataset provides ground-truth question-answer pairs where answers require synthesizing data from multiple locations within earnings reports and applying sequential arithmetic operations, testing whether models can decompose complex financial queries into discrete computational steps.
Unique: Combines real SEC filing documents (not synthetic) with crowdsourced questions requiring multi-step arithmetic, creating a hybrid dataset that tests both domain knowledge extraction and quantitative reasoning in a single evaluation task. Unlike generic math word problems, answers require locating figures within 10+ page documents first.
vs alternatives: More challenging than DROP or SVAMP because it requires financial domain knowledge AND document retrieval before arithmetic, whereas generic math benchmarks assume figures are already extracted
Assesses whether AI systems understand financial terminology, accounting concepts, and domain-specific metrics by requiring them to answer questions about real earnings reports from S&P 500 companies. The dataset tests recognition of financial line items (revenue, COGS, operating expenses, net income), ability to distinguish between different financial statements (income statement vs balance sheet), and understanding of financial ratios and metrics without explicit instruction on their definitions.
Unique: Uses authentic SEC filings rather than synthetic financial data, exposing models to real-world accounting variations, footnote complexity, and the actual structure of professional financial documents. This tests transfer learning from general text to specialized domain without domain-specific pretraining.
vs alternatives: More authentic than synthetic financial QA datasets because it uses real earnings reports with their inherent complexity, but narrower than general financial knowledge benchmarks because it focuses only on historical data interpretation
FinQA scores higher at 60/100 vs atlas-mcp-server at 35/100. atlas-mcp-server leads on ecosystem, while FinQA is stronger on adoption and quality.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Enables evaluation of AI systems' ability to extract numerical data from both structured HTML/text tables and unstructured prose within the same document, then reason over the extracted values. The dataset contains questions where relevant data appears in different formats — some figures are in formatted tables with clear row/column headers, while others are embedded in narrative text or footnotes — requiring robust parsing and entity linking before computation can occur.
Unique: Combines structured table data with unstructured narrative in the same evaluation, forcing systems to handle format heterogeneity and resolve references across different data representations. Most table QA datasets use clean, isolated tables; this tests real-world document complexity.
vs alternatives: More realistic than isolated table QA benchmarks (like SQA or WikiTableQuestions) because it requires handling narrative context and format mixing, but simpler than full document understanding because tables are already in text format (no OCR needed)
Provides a curated, crowdsourced-annotated dataset of 8,281 question-answer pairs with multi-step reasoning requirements, enabling systematic evaluation of AI systems on financial numerical reasoning. The dataset includes quality control mechanisms through crowdworker annotation, answer validation against ground truth, and coverage across diverse financial metrics and company types within the S&P 500, creating a reproducible evaluation standard for the financial AI community.
Unique: Provides a publicly available, reproducible benchmark specifically designed for financial numerical reasoning with real SEC filings, enabling standardized comparison across different financial AI systems. Most financial datasets are proprietary or synthetic; this is open-source and authentic.
vs alternatives: More specialized and challenging than generic QA benchmarks (SQuAD, MRQA) because it requires financial domain knowledge and multi-step arithmetic, but narrower in scope than comprehensive financial understanding benchmarks because it focuses only on numerical reasoning
Assesses AI systems' ability to perform multi-hop reasoning by requiring them to locate and combine information from different sections of earnings reports. Questions may require finding a figure in the income statement, then locating a related metric in the balance sheet, then performing arithmetic across both — testing whether models can maintain context across document boundaries and understand relationships between different financial statement sections.
Unique: Embeds multi-hop reasoning requirements within authentic financial documents where hops correspond to real relationships between financial statement sections, rather than synthetic reasoning chains. This tests whether models understand domain structure, not just generic multi-hop patterns.
vs alternatives: More realistic than synthetic multi-hop datasets (HotpotQA, 2WikiMultiHopQA) because reasoning hops follow actual financial relationships, but less controlled because document structure varies and reasoning paths are implicit rather than explicitly annotated
Enables evaluation of whether AI systems can identify which arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, comparison) are required to answer financial questions, then execute them correctly. The dataset implicitly tests operation selection — a question asking 'what is the profit margin' requires division (net income / revenue), while 'what is total assets' requires addition — forcing models to understand financial semantics before applying math.
Unique: Embeds arithmetic operation selection within financial domain context, requiring models to understand that 'margin' semantically maps to division and 'total' maps to addition. This tests semantic grounding of operations, not just arithmetic execution.
vs alternatives: More semantically grounded than generic math word problem datasets because operation selection is implicit in financial terminology, but less explicit than datasets with annotated operation types because operations must be inferred
Provides evaluation capability for AI systems to compare financial metrics across multiple S&P 500 companies or aggregate metrics across different time periods within the same company's earnings reports. While individual questions reference single documents, the dataset structure enables evaluation of systems that can retrieve and compare relevant companies, requiring understanding of which metrics are comparable across entities and how to normalize for company size or accounting differences.
Unique: Provides a foundation for evaluating cross-company financial comparison by including diverse S&P 500 companies with different business models and scales, enabling assessment of whether systems can normalize and compare metrics appropriately. Most financial QA datasets focus on single-document questions.
vs alternatives: Enables cross-company evaluation unlike single-document QA datasets, but requires external retrieval and comparison logic because the dataset itself contains only single-document questions