This tool empowers MCP-compatible clients (like Cursor and Claude Desktop) with professional-grade capabilities for financial data extraction, and report analysis.
Average 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: one resolves company identifiers, one searches report content, and one retrieves page content. The strategy notes explicitly separate use cases for keyword search versus page reading, leaving no overlap.
All names use camelCase and follow a readable compound-noun style, but the verb position is not uniform: 'searchCompanyInfo' and 'getFinancialReportPages' are verb-first, while 'financialKeywordSearch' places the verb at the end. This is a minor stylistic deviation rather than a confusing mix.
Three tools form the minimal coherent set for the server's purpose: resolve a company, search within reports, and read report pages. Each tool is essential and earns its place; a larger surface would be unnecessary for this read-only financial-report domain.
The core workflow of locating a company, searching for keywords, and reading report pages is fully covered with no dead ends. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to enumerate available reports or document metadata directly, but agents can work around this by reading the TOC or using keyword search.
financialKeywordSearchfinancialKeywordSearchAFull-text keyword search across financial reports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | Number of fragments to return, default 5, max 1000 | |
| market | No | Market: 'CN-A' | 'HK' | 'US'. Optional. Omit to search all markets. | |
| pageMax | No | Maximum page number (inclusive), optional | |
| pageMin | No | Minimum page number (inclusive), optional | |
| keywords | Yes | 1-5 keywords for full-text search | |
| matchMode | No | Match mode: ANY (default) / ALL / MOST (at least 70%) | |
| stockCode | No | Stock code from searchCompanyInfo. CN-A: 6 digits; HK: 5 digits; US: uppercase ticker. Omit for cross-company search. | |
| reportType | No | Report type, e.g. 2025a4 (annual), 2026h2 (interim). Required when stockCode is omitted. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotation Contradiction: annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description describes only a read-only full-text search operation and discloses no destructive side effects. This is a serious inconsistency, so the description cannot be trusted for behavioral safety. It also omits any side-effect or mutation warnings.
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?
The summary line is front-loaded and the body is organized into strategy and rules. It is long but dense with decision-relevant content; minor redundancy exists where reportType examples repeat the schema description, so it is not maximally 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 an 8-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers language alignment, report types, stock-code formats, cross-company requirements, data availability, and follow-up via getFinancialReportPages. It does not fully describe the return payload (e.g., fragment structure, pagination), leaving a modest completeness gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics beyond schema: keywords must be 1-5 financial terms, not sentences; matchMode='ALL' for locating sections; stockCode format rules and preference for searchCompanyInfo values; reportType required for cross-company search; market optionality. These enrich parameter understanding.
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 opening sentence 'Full-text keyword search across financial reports' states a specific verb+resource. The strategy distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly routing to getFinancialReportPages and searchCompanyInfo, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 <strategy> block provides explicit when-to-use guidance: specific data/facts use this tool, locate section with matchMode='ALL', skip for TOC or known page numbers, and call searchCompanyInfo first for unknown companies. It names alternatives directly, which exceeds minimal guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
getFinancialReportPagesgetFinancialReportPagesARead full page content from a financial report by page range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market | No | Market: 'CN-A' | 'HK' | 'US'. Optional. Omit to search all markets. | |
| pageCount | No | Number of pages to return, default 5, max 5 | |
| startPage | Yes | Start page (1-based) | |
| stockCode | Yes | Stock code from searchCompanyInfo. CN-A: 6 digits; HK: 5 digits; US: uppercase ticker. | |
| reportType | Yes | Report type, e.g. 2025a4 (annual), 2026h2 (interim) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true but the description states 'Read full page content' – a clear contradiction implying a non-destructive operation. No other behavioral details beyond constraints like pageCount max. Score 1 due to contradiction.
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?
The description is long with strategy and critical rules sections, but all sections add value. It is front-loaded with a clear purpose and structured. However, redundancy in some rules could be trimmed.
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?
Despite the contradiction, the description covers usage, parameters, constraints, and alternatives. It lacks output format explanation but given no output schema, it's acceptable. Overall complete for a read tool.
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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds essential semantics: startPage is 1-based, pageCount default and max, stock code format examples, market optionality. This goes beyond schema descriptions.
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 starts with 'Read full page content from a financial report by page range' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings (financialKeywordSearch for searching, searchCompanyInfo for identifying company) by focusing on page-level reading.
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?
It provides explicit strategy: read by known page, discover TOC, and prefer financialKeywordSearch for specific facts. It also tells when to call searchCompanyInfo first. That's explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchCompanyInfosearchCompanyInfoASearch listed companies by name or stock code. Resolves a company to stockCode and market.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | Result size, max 100, default 5 | |
| query | Yes | Company name or stock code | |
| market | Yes | Market: 'CN-A' | 'HK' | 'US'. Required. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotation Contradiction: The description describes a read-only search operation ('Search listed companies', 'Resolves to stockCode and market', returns JSON), but annotations set readOnlyHint:false and destructiveHint:true. This is a major inconsistency and the description does not clarify any side effects or mutation behavior.
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?
The description is well-structured with a leading summary, a strategy section, and critical rules. It packs essential information into clear, front-loaded sections without redundant wording. Every line adds operational value.
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?
Without an output schema, the description explicitly defines the return shape (JSON array with stockCode, stockName, market, listingDate). It also covers data availability (CN-A/HK) and code formats. A small gap is the lack of error/edge-case behavior, but the tool is simple enough that the description is largely complete.
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 coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: strict stock code formats for CN-A, HK, US, and the requirement to specify exactly one market per call. These details are not in the schema and help agent invocation accuracy.
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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('listed companies by name or stock code'), and clearly defines its purpose as resolving a company to stockCode and market. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by instructing to call it first, then pass results to financialKeywordSearch and getFinancialReportPages.
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 strategy block explicitly says 'Call this FIRST when the user mentions a company by name or a short/unknown code'. It also gives guidance for no-hit cases (language mismatch) and states that CN-A and HK have data, making alternative behaviors clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
