sec-intel
Server Details
Fresh SEC filing intel: 8-K events, Form 4 insider activity, risk-language, filing velocity, watch.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.6/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of SEC filings research: company_watch for a company overview, filing_digest for recent summaries, insider_activity for insider transactions, search_filings for ad-hoc full-text search, and whats_new_since for incremental updates. No ambiguity between them.
All tool names use descriptive snake_case with a clear verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (e.g., company_watch, insider_activity, search_filings). The naming style is consistent and intuitive.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain of SEC EDGAR data access. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary overlap, and the count is appropriate for the feature set.
The tool set covers key use cases: company monitoring, insider activity, full-text search, and incremental updates. Minor gaps could include direct retrieval of a single filing by accession number or more granular filtering, but the core workflows are complete.
Available Tools
5 toolscompany_watchAInspect
Given a company CIK, return recent filings, insider activity, and a filing-velocity stat (last-90 vs prior-90 days). Live-backfilled from EDGAR so it works day one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data is live-backfilled from EDGAR and mentions the output components, but lacks details on failure modes, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
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, front-loaded with action and output, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately lists the return components (filings, insider activity, velocity stat) and data source. However, it could provide more detail on the structure of the returned data.
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?
The schema has one parameter 'cik' with no description (0% coverage), but the description clarifies that it is a company CIK, adding essential meaning beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool returns recent filings, insider activity, and a filing-velocity stat given a company CIK. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools by combining multiple features.
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 implies usage when a CIK is available, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus its siblings (filing_digest, insider_activity) or provide '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.
filing_digestBInspect
Digest for a filter over the last N days: material 8-K events, insider (Form 4) activity, new registrations, and periodic reports. Best summary signal for a desk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | ||
| days | No | Lookback days (default 7). | |
| form | No | ||
| item | No | ||
| ticker | No | ||
| company | No | ||
| minEventScore | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It describes filtering over days and specific forms but fails to mention read-only nature, output format, or potential side effects. Missing details like pagination or error handling.
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 very concise—one sentence covering the main function and a recommendation. It is front-loaded with key information, though it could benefit from structured bullet points for readability.
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?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or how to effectively use the parameters. A tool with this complexity requires more detail.
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 low (14%); only 'days' has a description. The description mentions filtering by time and filing types, which implicitly maps to 'days' and 'form' parameters, but does not explain 'cik', 'ticker', 'company', or 'minEventScore'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 clearly states it provides a 'digest' for a filter over the last N days, listing specific filing types (8-K, Form 4, registrations, periodic reports). It explicitly claims to be the 'best summary signal for a desk,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'insider_activity' or 'search_filings'.
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 includes the phrase 'Best summary signal for a desk,' which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide guidance on choosing between alternatives like 'whats_new_since' or 'search_filings'. Usage context is implied but not fully specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
insider_activityAInspect
Recent Form 4/3/5 insider transactions with insider-cluster detection (multiple insiders filing on the same issuer). Optionally filter by ticker/CIK.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | ||
| days | No | ||
| ticker | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions the insider-cluster detection behavior but omits details on pagination, default time range, or whether the tool is read-only. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensively.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary function and key feature (cluster detection). Every part adds 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?
Given the lack of output schema and the complexity of insider transactions, the description should detail what fields are returned (e.g., filing date, insider name, transaction type). It only mentions 'transactions' and 'cluster detection,' leaving the agent without enough information to interpret results.
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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains 'ticker' and 'cik' as optional filters but does not mention the 'days' parameter, which is left entirely unexplained. This is a significant gap.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves recent Form 4/3/5 insider transactions with a unique insider-cluster detection feature. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which deal with broader filing searches or company tracking.
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 implies usage for retrieving recent insider transactions with optional filters, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_filings or filing_digest.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_filingsBInspect
Direct live search of SEC EDGAR full-text for the latest filings of a form type in a date range. Use for ad-hoc lookups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Optional full-text query. | |
| end | No | ||
| form | No | Form type, e.g. '8-K'. | |
| limit | No | Default 50, max 100. | |
| start | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'Direct live search' and 'latest filings' but does not cover data freshness guarantees, rate limits, authentication needs, output format, or pagination 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and ends with usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the output looks like, how pagination works, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.
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 60% (3 of 5 parameters described). The description adds context about searching by form type and date range, which aligns with the form, start, and end parameters, but it does not elaborate on the 'q' or 'limit' parameters beyond what the schema already states. The meaning of 'end' and 'start' (date format) remains unspecified.
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 clearly states the verb 'search', the resource 'SEC EDGAR full-text', and specifies the scope 'latest filings of a form type in a date range'. It distinguishes from siblings which target different functions like monitoring or digesting.
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 advises 'Use for ad-hoc lookups,' giving a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the siblings, leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
whats_new_sinceAInspect
Return SEC filings that are NEW since a cursor token (your bookmark). Pass the cursor from a prior call to get only filings since then. Filter by form type, ticker, CIK, 8-K item code, and minimum event severity. This is the fresh-filing delta feed's core lock-in primitive. Monitoring/research over public EDGAR data — not investment advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | ||
| form | No | Form types, e.g. ['8-K','4']. | |
| item | No | 8-K item code, e.g. '5.02'. | |
| limit | No | Max filings to return (default 100). | |
| cursor | No | Opaque cursor from a previous response; omit for first call. | |
| ticker | No | ||
| minEventScore | No | Severity floor 1-10 (material events only). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the delta behavior and cursor usage but does not cover side effects, rate limits, authentication, or output structure. The disclaimer about not being investment advice is minor behavioral context.
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?
Three sentences with front-loaded key action. Each sentence adds value: purpose, cursor usage, filters. No wasted words.
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?
Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description explains input usage and cursor mechanics but does not describe the output format (e.g., it includes a cursor for next calls). Missing error handling or response structure details, which are important for an agent.
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 71% (5 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description adds semantic value by explicitly listing the filter parameters (form type, ticker, CIK, etc.) and clarifying their use for filtering, especially for undocumented params like cik and ticker.
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 clearly states the tool returns new SEC filings since a given cursor, specifying the resource (SEC filings) and the unique delta mechanism. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_filings by being a fresh-filing delta feed.
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 explains how to use the cursor from a prior call and lists available filters. It implies use cases (monitoring/research) but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, though sibling tools suggest other search modes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!