AlphaCreek SEC Filings MCP
Server Details
Access SEC filings efficiently (10-K, 10-Q, etc), save time and tokens, and get cited answers.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.7/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: listing filings, getting the latest filing metadata, retrieving a filing's table of contents, and reading node content. There is no ambiguity or overlap between them.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a verb followed by descriptive nouns (e.g., list_filings, get_latest_filing, get_filing_toc, read_node_content). No mixing of conventions.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for navigating SEC filings. Each tool covers a necessary step in the workflow without being excessive or insufficient.
The toolset covers the core workflow of discovering filings, retrieving metadata, and reading content. A minor gap is the lack of a direct 'get filing by ID' tool, but this can be worked around via list_filings and get_filing_toc. Overall, it is largely complete for the intended purpose.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_filing_tocARead-onlyInspect
Return the full filing table of contents for one filing. If artifact_document_id is omitted, resolves the single latest filing for ticker/company (and optional document_type) only. Use list_filings first to discover a specific reporting period.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | No | ||
| company | No | ||
| document_type | No | Optional SEC filing type filter. One of 10-K, 10-Q, 20-F, 6-K, 8-K; comma-separated (e.g. 10-K,10-Q); or a JSON array string. | |
| artifact_document_id | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency by explaining the behavior when artifact_document_id is omitted, which resolves to the latest filing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Each sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers main use cases and usage flow but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., providing both ticker and company, no output schema to describe return format).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 25%, the description compensates by explaining the artifact_document_id omission behavior and the role of ticker/company. However, it does not clarify document_type's array option or interactions between parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the full filing table of contents for one filing, and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_filings and get_latest_filing by focusing on TOC retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises to use list_filings first to discover a specific reporting period, which guides appropriate usage. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_latest_filingCRead-onlyInspect
Return latest filing metadata for a company or ticker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | No | ||
| company | No | ||
| document_type | No | Optional SEC filing type filter. One of 10-K, 10-Q, 20-F, 6-K, 8-K; comma-separated (e.g. 10-K,10-Q); or a JSON array string. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so description adds no behavioral context beyond that. Does not mention rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and resource. No extraneous text. However, could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing details on parameter trade-offs (ticker vs company), output format, pagination (if any), and edge cases (no filings found). Given no output schema, description should provide more context for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only document_type has a schema description). The tool description adds no parameter-level details, leaving the agent uncertain about ticker vs company usage, format requirements, or defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Return', resource 'filing metadata', and scope 'latest for company or ticker'. Differentiates from siblings (get_filing_toc, list_filings, read_node_content) by specifying 'latest' and 'metadata' versus table of contents or content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. Does not mention that ticker and company are mutually exclusive or that document_type is a filter. No context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_filingsARead-onlyInspect
List available filings for a ticker (newest first) with artifact_document_id and dates. Use this first when you need a specific reporting period.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| ticker | No | ||
| company | No | ||
| document_type | No | Optional SEC filing type filter. One of 10-K, 10-Q, 20-F, 6-K, 8-K; comma-separated (e.g. 10-K,10-Q); or a JSON array string. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds ordering (newest first) and output fields beyond annotations. But lacks details on parameter behavior (e.g., relationship between ticker and company, limit default, or how missing parameters affect results). Annotations already cover safety, so moderate additional value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two succinct sentences with no filler. The first delivers core purpose and behavior, the second adds contextual guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple list tool with good annotations, but missing parameter explanations and output schema details. Given sibling tools and 4 parameters, more complete guidance on param usage and output would improve usefulness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only ticker is implied in the description; limit, company, and document_type are not explained. Schema coverage is low (25%), and the description does not compensate by describing parameter roles, defaults, or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool lists filings for a ticker with newest-first order and key output fields. It also provides usage guidance ('Use this first when you need a specific reporting period'), which differentiates it from siblings like get_latest_filing or get_filing_toc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to use this tool first when a specific reporting period is needed, implying it's a starting point before other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
read_node_contentARead-onlyInspect
Return content for one or more navigation nodes in a filing. Pass one node via node_id or several via node_ids, using the node ids from TOC lines. These are the same values shown as NODE_ID lines in read_node_content output. The authoritative node content is returned as plain MCP text only: an ARTIFACT_DOCUMENT_ID header, then per-node blocks with NODE_ID, TITLE, CITATION_URL, CONTENT_START … CONTENT_END. A TOC node may expand into more granular child NODE_ID blocks; cite those granular NODE_ID/CITATION_URL pairs when they support the claim. For every material claim or logical paragraph in your answer, place one or more relevant CITATION_URL links immediately next to the claim, using the URL paired with each supporting NODE_ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_id | No | Single node id (same values as NODE_ID in tool output and TOC lines); alternative to node_ids. | |
| node_ids | No | Batch read: multiple node ids for one filing (same identifiers as NODE_ID). | |
| artifact_document_id | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds output format details and instructions on granular child nodes, enriching behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with purpose, then explains parameters and output. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description explains usage, output format, and citation guidance well. Minor gap: artifact_document_id meaning is implied.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 67% of parameters. Description adds meaning for node_id/node_ids by linking to TOC, but artifact_document_id remains undescribed. Baseline 3 with partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb 'return content' and resource 'navigation nodes in a filing'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_filing_toc which returns TOC, not node content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides source of node ids (TOC lines) and explains how to pass nodes. Lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, but gives enough context for typical use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!