Enterprise DNA
M MCP Servers Developer low

lmwharton/sieve-mcp

by Various

From company name to investment decision. Sieve scores startups across 7 dimensions so you know who's worth a meeting.

L

MCP

lmwharton/sieve-mcp

Added 1 June 2026

#ai #ai-analyst #angel-investing #claude #cursor #deal-flow #deal-scoring #due-diligence

Overview

Sieve-MCP takes a company name and returns a score across seven startup evaluation dimensions, helping investors decide which meetings are worth taking. It runs as a Python-based tool that automates the initial screening process.

Best for

Best for
Early‑stage investors and analysts needing fast, repeatable startup evaluations.

Use cases

  • Quickly scoring a batch of startup names to prioritize leads
  • Automating initial due diligence checks for early-stage investments
  • Integrating startup assessment into a larger deal flow pipeline

Notes

Sieve-MCP takes a company name and returns a score across seven startup evaluation dimensions, helping investors decide which meetings are worth taking. It runs as a Python-based tool that automates the initial screening process.

4 stars on GitHub. Last updated 2026-03-18. Licensed MIT.

Use cases

  • Quickly scoring a batch of startup names to prioritize leads
  • Automating initial due diligence checks for early-stage investments
  • Integrating startup assessment into a larger deal flow pipeline

Pros

  • Provides a structured, multi‑dimension score from just a company name
  • Saves time on manual research during early screening
  • Simple input/output that fits into existing workflows

Cons

  • Scoring depends on the freshness and breadth of underlying public data
  • May miss qualitative or off‑record signals that a human would catch
  • Limited to the seven predefined dimensions without customization

Indexed from awesome-mcp-servers-punkpeye and enriched against its public facts.

Pros

  • Provides a structured, multi‑dimension score from just a company name
  • Saves time on manual research during early screening
  • Simple input/output that fits into existing workflows

Cons

  • Scoring depends on the freshness and breadth of underlying public data
  • May miss qualitative or off‑record signals that a human would catch
  • Limited to the seven predefined dimensions without customization