Full-text search across all EDGAR filings for a keyword or phrase (e.g. a risk factor, product name, or executive). Returns matching filings with company, form type, and date. Optionally restrict to a form type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return. | |
| query | Yes | Search phrase | |
| form_type | No | Optional form filter, e.g. 8-K |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that this is a full-text search and what fields are returned, which is helpful. But it remains silent on result ordering, pagination, rate limits, whether the search covers the full document text versus metadata, or what happens when no matches are found. The disclosure is adequate but not rich.
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 with no filler. The main verb, resource, and output are front-loaded, and the optional filter is mentioned at the end as a natural extension. Every 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?
For a simple three-parameter search tool, the description covers the core invocation needs: what to search, what is returned, and how to narrow by form type. There is no output schema, so the return-value hint (company, form type, date) is valuable. It is not fully complete because it omits behavior like result limits or ordering, but for this low complexity it is close to sufficient.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds small semantic value by giving example query types ('risk factor, product name, or executive') and clarifying that form_type is an optional filter. However, it does not add new meaning for the limit parameter, so the overall lift over the schema is minor.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across all EDGAR filings for a keyword or phrase.' It also clarifies the output (matching filings with company, form type, and date), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like company_lookup or recent_filings without needing to open their schemas.
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 clearly implies the intended use case: searching filing content for a keyword or phrase. It also notes the optional form-type restriction, giving the reader a sense of how to narrow scope. However, it never explicitly contrasts with sibling tools (e.g., 'use recent_filings to list filings without a keyword'), so it stops short of full when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool maps to a clearly distinct SEC data need: company identity resolution, full-text filing search, XBRL financials, insider transaction filings, and recent filing lists. Even the two filing-related tools are sharply separated by global keyword search versus company-specific recent activity.
All names use lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: company_lookup and filing_search use object+action, while financials, insider_transactions, and recent_filings are noun phrases. The names are readable and descriptive, but there is no consistent verb_noun structure across the set.
Five tools is well-scoped for an SEC filings intelligence server, covering lookup, search, financials, insider activity, and recent filings without redundant surface. Each tool has a clear role and the count sits comfortably in the ideal range.
The main research workflow is covered: identify a company, search filings, pull financial facts, inspect insider filings, and list recent SEC submissions. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool for fetching a single filing's full text or parsed insider transaction details, but returned links and financial data cover most needs.