IPOGrid IPO Calendar & Filing Research
Server Details
IPO calendar, SEC filings, deal terms, and IPO news research via the IPOGrid MCP server.
- 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 4.5/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_chart for IPO chart data, get_company for single issuer details, list_companies for discovery, and list_news for news. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_chart, get_company, list_companies, list_news. Perfectly uniform.
With 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for IPO calendar and filing research. Each tool serves a necessary function without being too few or excessive.
The tools cover essential operations: discovery, details, charts, and news. Minor gaps like direct filing access or calendar browsing exist, but core workflows are supported.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_chartGet ChartARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Build an aggregated IPO chart and return its data plus canonical embed, page, and API URLs. Use this instead of hand-building chart URLs. Anonymous requests are quota-limited and may clamp a 52-week range to 26 weeks or a daily bucket to weekly unless the explicit date window is at most 31 days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | No | Dimension used to split chart series. Defaults to sector for proceeds/returns and form_family for filing counts. | |
| range | No | Trailing window when explicit dates are omitted. Defaults to 26w; anonymous 52w requests are clamped to 26w. | |
| scope | No | Include all matching records or only active offerings. Defaults to active. | |
| bucket | No | Time interval. Defaults to week; anonymous daily requests require an explicit window of at most 31 days or are clamped to week. | |
| issuer | No | Include every issuer or exclude SPACs. Defaults to all. | |
| metric | No | Value to aggregate. Defaults to gross_proceeds. | |
| date_to | No | Inclusive YYYY-MM-DD upper bound. Use with date_from for a custom window instead of range. | |
| date_from | No | Inclusive YYYY-MM-DD lower bound. Use with date_to for a custom window instead of range. | |
| materiality | No | Include all filing forms or only major IPO forms. Defaults to all. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| links | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: quota limits for anonymous requests, clamping of range from 52w to 26w, and bucket clamping from daily to weekly unless the date window is ≤31 days. This aligns with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations.
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, no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary action and return value; the second covers critical behavioral caveats. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 tool with 9 optional parameters, the description explains key behavioral constraints (clamping, defaults) that are essential for correct usage. The output schema covers return structure, so no further description needed here.
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 100%, so the description does not need to redefine parameters. It adds value by noting default behaviors (e.g., group defaults to sector for proceeds) and clamping rules that depend on parameter combinations, which goes beyond the schema's static 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 tool builds an aggregated IPO chart and returns data plus canonical URLs. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting 'Use this instead of hand-building chart URLs.'
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 a clear use case (replacing manual URL construction). It also discusses rate limits and clamping for anonymous requests. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative tools, though siblings are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_companyGet CompanyARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Fetch one issuer by SEC CIK after discovery with list_companies. Optional enrichments add terms and research context; anonymous requests allow only latest_terms, classification, and news.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | Yes | SEC Central Index Key, with or without leading zeroes (for example 1907085 or 0001907085). | |
| include | No | Optional detail sections. Anonymous requests silently omit consensus, financial_snapshot, filings, and comps. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Issuer detail with the requested and permitted enrichment sections. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as that optional enrichments are available and anonymous requests silently omit certain sections. No contradictions.
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, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral details about optional enrichments and anonymous requests. No wasteful 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 the tool has only 2 parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It mentions prerequisites (after list_companies), behavior for anonymous requests, and the nature of optional enrichments, leaving no significant gaps.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description summarizes the optional include parameter but does not add meaningful detail beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Fetch one issuer by SEC CIK after discovery with list_companies.' It provides a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (issuer by CIK), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_companies and list_news by noting the prerequisite discovery step.
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 context: it should be used after list_companies and mentions anonymous request limitations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives like get_chart or list_news, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_companiesList CompaniesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Discover IPOGrid companies and active deals with cursor pagination and market, issuer-kind, freshness, or proceeds filters. Use get_company after selecting an issuer. Anonymous requests return at most 10 rows and omit consensus enrichment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Return only these issuer kinds. Omit to include every kind. | |
| limit | No | Maximum rows to return. Defaults to 50 when authenticated; anonymous requests are capped at 10. | |
| scope | No | Filter to IPO-only rows or all active deal rows. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque next_cursor from a previous response. Omit for the first page. | |
| market | No | Filter by normalized market family. | |
| include | No | Optional enrichments for each row. Anonymous requests silently omit consensus. | |
| updated_since | No | ISO-8601 lower bound on the company update timestamp. | |
| gross_proceeds_gt | No | Lower bound on gross proceeds, using stated gross proceeds or a midpoint estimate from price range times shares offered. | |
| gross_proceeds_lt | No | Upper bound on gross proceeds, using stated gross proceeds or a midpoint estimate from price range times shares offered. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Rows for the current page. |
| meta | Yes | |
| has_more | Yes | Whether another page is available. |
| next_cursor | Yes | Opaque cursor for the next page, or null when this is the last page. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive. Description adds cursor pagination behavior, anonymous request caps, and enrichment omission, which are useful beyond annotations. Does not contradict any annotation.
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 zero wasted words. Front-loaded with main purpose and followed by key behavioral notes. 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?
Given 9 parameters, rich schema, output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, pagination, relationship to sibling, and auth constraints. No obvious gaps for a read-only listing 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 covers all 9 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. Description adds value by grouping filters (market, issuer-kind, freshness, proceeds) and highlighting default row limits for authenticated vs. anonymous, which enriches parameter meaning.
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?
Description clearly states it discovers IPOGrid companies and active deals with filters, and distinguishes from sibling get_company by noting use after selecting an issuer. Verb 'discover' plus resource and filter types make purpose explicit.
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 says when to use this tool (discovering companies/deals with filters) and when to switch to get_company after selecting an issuer. Also notes anonymous request limitations, providing clear context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_newsList NewsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List recent IPO-company news, optionally filtered by SEC CIK. Use this for a news feed; use get_company with news for broader issuer context. Anonymous requests return at most 10 rows and omit full content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | Optional SEC CIK filter, with or without leading zeroes. | |
| limit | No | Maximum rows to return. Defaults to 50 when authenticated; anonymous requests are capped at 10. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque next_cursor from a previous response. Omit for the first page. | |
| include | No | Set to ["content"] for stored article body text. Anonymous requests omit content. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Rows for the current page. |
| meta | Yes | |
| has_more | Yes | Whether another page is available. |
| next_cursor | Yes | Opaque cursor for the next page, or null when this is the last page. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds concrete constraints: anonymous requests are capped at 10 rows and omit full content. No contradictions with annotations.
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 that immediately state purpose, usage guidance, and key limitation. No extraneous words; front-loaded with essential 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 the presence of an output schema and informative annotations, the description covers purpose, differentiation, and anonymous restrictions. It could mention pagination or time range but is sufficiently complete for agent usage.
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 schema already explains each parameter. The description adds little beyond repeating the CIK filter and limit cap, so minimal added value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 lists recent IPO-company news with optional CIK filter. It distinguishes from sibling tools by recommending this for a news feed and get_company for broader issuer context.
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 tells when to use this tool ('for a news feed') and when to use an alternative ('use get_company with news for broader issuer context'). Also mentions anonymous request limitations.
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!