Clarifo

screen_companies_multi

Read-onlyIdempotent

Screen companies by up to five financial criteria in one call; only companies passing ALL filters are returned. Each filter scans the top 100 companies for its metric and the lists are intersected, so companies outside a filter's top 100 are not seen.

Args: filters: List of filter objects (max 5): metric (required, as in screen_companies), mode ("growth" default or "value"), growth_min / growth_max (%, growth mode), value_min / value_max, compare_years (default 1). E.g. [{"metric": "revenue", "growth_min": 15}, {"metric": "ebit", "mode": "value", "value_min": 0}]. marketcap is Nordic-only and sparse; prefer revenue for size. country: "US", "FI", "SE" or "Nordic" (also "Nordics"/"Scandinavia"; one call, do not call per country). Omit for all markets. include_types: Entity types; ["operating"] excludes banks, REITs and holdings. top_n: Max companies (default 20). rank_by: Index into filters used for ranking (default 0). index: "sp500"; forces country="US".

Returns {filters_applied, companies, coverage: {passed_all, returned}}; passed_all counts matches within the scanned top-100 lists only.

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": {
      "filters": "<filters>"
    },
    "name": "screen_companies_multi"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`index`	No
`top_n`	No
`country`	No
`filters`	Yes
`rank_by`	No
`include_types`	No

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

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely valuable behavior beyond that: the top-100-per-filter scan window, the intersection semantics, and that coverage.passed_all only counts matches inside those scanned lists — a real caveat an agent would otherwise miss. It does not cover cost/rate limits for a multi-scan call, so it earns solid credit but not the top mark.

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 the scope and the intersection caveat before the Args block, and the Args list is dense with no filler. Minor ding: it restates the return payload shape even though an output schema exists, which is mild redundancy.

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 six-parameter screening tool the description supplies the filter grammar, market scope, entity-type filtering, ranking semantics and the important coverage caveat about top-100 scanning. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or interpret the result 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does it well: it enumerates every filter sub-field with defaults (mode='growth', compare_years=1), gives an inline example filter list, lists the accepted country values and aliases, explains include_types=['operating'] excludes banks/REITs/holdings, and defines rank_by as an index into filters. This is meaning well beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('screen companies by up to five financial criteria in one call') and distinguishes itself from the single-metric sibling by naming its defining trait: filters are intersected so only companies passing ALL filters return. An agent can select this over screen_companies without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance: reference to screen_companies for the metric syntax, 'one call, do not call per country' for the Nordic aliases, 'prefer revenue for size' since marketcap is sparse, and index forcing country='US'. It stops short of an explicit 'use screen_companies instead when you have only one criterion', but the routing context is clear.

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.