FiledProof

Build disclosure evidence timeline

filedproof.build_timeline

Read-onlyIdempotent

Organize topic-relevant filing evidence chronologically across a bounded set of SEC filings. Use this when sequence over time is the primary need. Use filedproof.build_disclosure_lineage when you need persisted same-form evolution and reusable transition state, filedproof.compare_filings for exactly two known accessions, or filedproof.check_disclosure_changes for prioritized monitoring of newly filed changes. The timeline does not invent semantic change or materiality.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	Yes	Research question or disclosure topic.
`item`	No	Optional SEC filing item, such as 1A or 7.
`forms`	No	SEC forms to search. Defaults to 10-K and 10-Q.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of operation-specific evidence or result records to return.
`filings`	No	Maximum number of filings to inspect for this invocation.
`history`	No	Whether to use bounded historical SEC submission archives when needed.
`section`	No	Optional exact normalized section heading.
`identifier`	Yes	Ticker, CIK, or exact SEC company name.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 13, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / filings / description

Added value: +"Maximum number of filings to inspect for this invocation."

addedInput schema / properties / history / description

Added value: +"Whether to use bounded historical SEC submission archives when needed."

addedInput schema / properties / limit / description

Added value: +"Maximum number of operation-specific evidence or result records to return."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Structured FiledProof result with operation-specific evidence, provenance, coverage, and uncertainty fields.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the caveat that 'the timeline does not invent semantic change or materiality,' which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose how the bounded set is determined or return format details, but with strong annotations, the bar is lowered; 3 is fair.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then quickly moves to alternative selection. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage guidance effectively. It might lack explicit mention of how the bounded set is restricted (e.g., by forms and filings parameters), but the schema covers that. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds the concept that 'bounded set' relates to filings and forms but doesn't need to explain each parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description explicitly states it organizes evidence chronologically across a bounded set of SEC filings, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like build_disclosure_lineage and compare_filings. The purpose is clear and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('when sequence over time is the primary need') and explicitly names alternative tools with their use cases, including build_disclosure_lineage, compare_filings, and check_disclosure_changes. This gives clear direction on selection.

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

All FiledProof 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.

Resources

Need Help?