Clarifo

reporting_change

Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyse how an in-flight IASB / EFRAG reporting project affects companies, grounded in their filings. Deterministic (no LLM spend). Known projects: "Risk Mitigation Accounting" (DRM), "IAS 28 Fair Value Option Amendments", "IFRS 20" (rate-regulated activities), "ESRS-40a" (ESRS for non-EU groups); an unknown project returns the valid list. IFRS projects apply to IFRS reporters; US-GAAP filers are mainly in scope of ESRS-40a.

Modes (any other value = assess):

"assess" (default): one company's scope assessment, baseline evidence with verification states, gap assessment and unresolved questions. Without company: the project card and evidence checklist.
"screen": exposure across a universe, per company likely_relevant / potentially_relevant / no_public_evidence_found / likely_not_relevant / not_assessable, with confidence and reasons.
"card": article-ready roadmap card (eight sections, from What changed to Confidence) plus visual_cards_outline.

Args: project: Name, id or alias, e.g. "IFRS 20", "DRM", "ESRS-40a". company: Name or ticker; assess target, card filing example. companies: Explicit list (max 15) for screen / card. industry / country ("US", "FI", "SE", "Nordic"): screen / card filters, ignored when companies is given. top_n: Universe size for screen / card (default 10, max 15). assess_depth: "full" (default) or "scoping" (scope signals only). as_of: Optional assessment date.

Returns official_sources, filing_sources / evidence and source_policy in every mode, plus publication_gate (assess) and methodology_audit (screen). Cite as numbered links to citation_markdown's URL, never raw page_id strings.

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": {
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "reporting_change"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`mode`	No	assess
`as_of`	No
`top_n`	No
`company`	No
`country`	No
`project`	Yes
`industry`	No
`companies`	No
`assess_depth`	No	full

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds real behavior: deterministic with no LLM spend, an unknown project returns the valid list rather than erroring, and every mode returns official_sources/filing_sources/source_policy plus publication_gate or methodology_audit. It also imposes an output convention (cite numbered links from citation_markdown, never raw page_id).

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then a scannable Modes list, then a compact Args block and a returns paragraph; headers do the structural work. Slightly long and the returns/citation paragraph repeats some ground the output schema already covers.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 9-parameter, multi-mode tool with an output schema, this covers what is needed: purpose, mode selection, per-parameter meaning, filter interactions, and citation policy. The unenumerated project catalog is handled explicitly by the 'unknown project returns the valid list' behavior, so nothing essential is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: project accepts name/id/alias with concrete examples, company is name-or-ticker, companies is a list capped at 15, industry/country take examples like 'US'/'FI'/'Nordic' and are ignored when companies is given, top_n defaults to 10 capped at 15, assess_depth is 'full' or 'scoping', and mode documents its enumerated values plus the fallback.

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?

Specific verb and resource with clear scope: 'Analyse how an in-flight IASB / EFRAG reporting project affects companies, grounded in their filings,' plus the IFRS vs US-GAAP applicability split and the note that it is deterministic/LLM-free. It never names a sibling such as answer_reporting_standards to differentiate against, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The Modes block gives concrete selection guidance ('assess' = one company, 'screen' = universe exposure, 'card' = article-ready output) with defaults and fallback behavior for unrecognized values. It also states that industry/country filters are ignored when companies is supplied, which is real routing guidance. It does not say when to prefer a different tool instead.

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

All Clarifo tools Inspect

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.