SEC EDGAR filings parsed: 8-K body-text classification, 13D activist tagging, S-3 ATM detection.
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.
Average 4.3/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: get_filing retrieves a specific filing by accession number, while the three search tools focus on different filing types (13D/13G, 8-K, ATM offerings). No overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_filing and search_<type>_filings. The slight difference between 'get' and 'search' is appropriate for the distinct operations (retrieval vs. search).
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped. It covers both retrieval of a specific filing and search across three important SEC filing categories. The count feels neither too thin nor too heavy for the domain.
The tools cover a niche but useful subset of SEC filings. However, there is no general search (e.g., by company name or date range) and no support for other common filings like 10-K or 10-Q. The 72-hour recency limit also restricts coverage. Gaps exist for broader SEC research.
get_filingAInspectFetch one filing by SEC accession number, regardless of recency.
Useful when an agent has an accession number from a citation or earlier
tool call and needs the parsed details.
Args:
accession_number: SEC accession in 'XXXXXXXXXX-YY-NNNNNN' format.
Returns:
JSON for the filing if found in our archive, or {"found": false}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accession_number | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears the burden. It notes 'regardless of recency' and implies a safe read operation. Does not explicitly state read-only or idempotent, but conveys core 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?
Extremely concise: one sentence plus structured Args/Returns. Every sentence is informative without redundancy.
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?
The tool has one parameter and a straightforward return. The description covers when to use, parameter format, and return structure. Could mention error handling, but adequate for this simplicity.
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%, but the description provides the required format for accession_number ('XXXXXXXXXX-YY-NNNNNN'). This adds meaning beyond the JSON schema, though more detail could help.
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 specifies a concrete verb ('Fetch one filing') and resource ('by SEC accession number'), and distinguishes itself from sibling search tools which search by other criteria.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'when an agent has an accession number...needs the parsed details'. Does not explicitly list when not to use, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_13d_filingsAInspectSearch recent SEC Schedule 13D / 13G filings from the past 72 hours.
Args:
activist: Filter to filings tagged with this activist filer name.
Substring match, case-insensitive. Examples: 'Saba', 'Starboard',
'Icahn', 'Elliott', 'Pershing'.
min_percent: Minimum percent of class disclosed.
include_amendments: Include 13D/A and 13G/A amendments. Default True.
include_passive_13g: Include passive Schedule 13G filings. Default False
(only active 13D / 13D/A returned).
limit: Max results (1-50, default 25).
Returns:
JSON list of filings with cusip, percent_of_class, aggregate_amount,
activist_filers, and an Item 4 purpose excerpt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| activist | No | ||
| min_percent | No | ||
| include_amendments | No | ||
| include_passive_13g | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 explains the search behavior, default inclusion/exclusion of amendments and passive 13G, and the return format. It does not explicitly state read-only or non-destructive nature, but as a search tool this is implied. The transparency is high, but not maximal.
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 concise (around 10 lines) and well-structured with an Args block and Returns block. It front-loads the purpose and each sentence adds value. No redundant information.
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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is impressively complete. It explains all parameters, their defaults, the 72-hour time window, and the return fields (cusip, percent_of_class, etc.). It leaves minimal gaps for an agent to understand how to use the tool.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate entirely. It does so excellently: for each parameter (activist, min_percent, include_amendments, include_passive_13g, limit), it provides clear semantics, defaults, and examples (e.g., activist with substring match and examples). This fully replaces the missing schema descriptions.
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 Schedule 13D / 13G filings', and the scope 'past 72 hours'. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_8k_filings and search_atm_offerings, which cover different filing types.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching recent 13D/13G filings) and explains parameter defaults. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct the user to alternative tools, though the sibling names imply different use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_8k_filingsAInspectSearch recent SEC 8-K filings (current report) from the past 72 hours.
Args:
items: Comma-separated 8-K item codes to filter on. Examples: '1.05'
(cybersecurity), '5.02' (officer departure), '8.01' (other events),
'1.01' (material agreement). Leave None for all 8-Ks.
suspected_buried_only: If True, return only filings where our
body-text classifier flagged a suspected misclassification —
i.e. cyber language under Item 8.01 that should have been 1.05,
officer-departure language under 8.01 that should have been 5.02.
limit: Max results (1-50, default 25).
Returns:
JSON-formatted list of filings. Each includes: accession_number,
company_name, filed_at, filer_reported_items, detected_items,
discrepancy_items (in body but not reported), and
suspected_buried_events (map of reported→suspected).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| suspected_buried_only | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully describes read-only behavior (search), time window, filtering, and the suspected buried classifier. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but these are typical for search tools.
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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by Args in a clear list format, then Returns. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information is front-loaded.
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?
The description covers the time window, parameters, and return fields. An output schema exists and is supplemented by text. It does not address pagination or zero-result cases, but overall it provides sufficient context for a search tool.
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 fully defines each parameter: items with examples (e.g., '1.05' for cybersecurity), suspected_buried_only with clear explanation, and limit with range and default.
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 searches recent SEC 8-K filings from the past 72 hours, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_13d_filings and search_atm_offerings by focusing on the 8-K form.
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 8-K filings, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_filing for a single filing or search_13d_filings for 13D forms. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_atm_offeringsAInspectSearch recent SEC at-the-market (ATM) equity offerings from the past 72 hours.
Pulls from S-3 / 424B5 family filings where our parser flagged ATM-offering
indicators in the body language.
Args:
sales_agent: Filter by sales agent name (substring, case-insensitive).
Examples: 'Cantor Fitzgerald', 'Jefferies', 'Roth Capital',
'H.C. Wainwright'.
min_shelf_million_usd: Minimum shelf size in millions USD.
limit: Max results (1-50, default 25).
Returns:
JSON list with shelf_size_usd, is_atm, sales_agents, use_of_proceeds_excerpt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| sales_agent | No | ||
| min_shelf_million_usd | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the data source (SEC filings with parser flags) and temporal scope (72 hours), but does not cover potential latency, rate limits, or data freshness guarantees. With no annotations, it provides adequate but not exhaustive transparency.
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 structured with purpose, source, args, and returns sections. It is information-dense but not verbose, though some parameter repetition could be streamlined.
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 presence of an output schema and low complexity (3 optional params), the description covers usage adequately. It could add more on filtering behavior or edge cases, but remains complete enough.
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 0%, but the description fully compensates by detailing each parameter with types, defaults, examples, and constraints (e.g., substring, case-insensitive for sales_agent, 1-50 for limit).
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 searches recent SEC at-the-market equity offerings from the past 72 hours, using a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like search_13d_filings or search_8k_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 explains when to use the tool (searching recent ATM offerings from S-3/424B5 filings) and provides parameter examples, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives beyond sibling tool names.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!