Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Conecto

by chat.conecto
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get a company's filed financials

companies_financials
Read-onlyIdempotent

Up to ten years of a company's filed figures in one shape: revenue, costs, EBITDA, EBIT, net income, assets, cash, debt, equity, working capital, cash flow and capex where filed, each year with the document it came from, plus KPIs (growth, margins, ROCE, net debt to EBITDA, payment days). From SEC XBRL, EU listed companies' ESEF reports, UK accounts, Norway's accounts register, or France's revenue and profit. Nothing is charged when no register publishes figures. Costs $0.05 per call; nothing if it fails.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "company": "<company>"
    },
    "name": "companies_financials"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearsNo
companyYesA company id from companies_search: fr:306138900, gb:08123456, no:923609016, fi:1927400-1, us:769520 or lei:529900K139N6UFJ1A758.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses billing behavior ($0.05 per call, free on failure or when no register publishes figures) and provenance (each year tagged with the source document). That is real context an agent cannot get from the annotations, though nothing is said about error modes or response latency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The intent is front-loaded in the opening clause, then the field list, sources, and cost follow. The long enumerated list of line items is somewhat dense but each item carries information in the absence of an output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining the return shape (figures, KPIs, per-year source document) and adds billing and coverage caveats. The only meaningful hole is the undocumented years parameter and lack of sibling disambiguation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The company parameter is fully documented in the schema with concrete id formats and a pointer to companies_search. The years parameter has no schema description, and the description only implicitly bounds it ('up to ten years', default not restated), so coverage of the second parameter is thin but not absent.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieves up to ten years of a company's filed financials, and enumerates the figures and KPIs returned. It never names or contrasts itself with close siblings such as companies_read_accounts, companies_get or companies_estimate, so an agent must infer which one to pick.

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?

The list of registers (SEC XBRL, ESEF, UK, Norway, France) implies when the tool will return data and when it won't, and the pricing note reinforces that. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives for related needs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Conecto toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources