Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

autario-mcp

by io.github.Autario
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

who_holds

Read-onlyIdempotent

Which of the investors autario tracks hold a company, from their latest SEC Form 13F: value in USD, shares, weight in each portfolio and the change in shares against the prior quarter. Works for companies on the autario company roster (holdings are linked by exact issuer name); for any other security use get_investor_portfolio and filter by CUSIP. Positions are as of the quarter end, filed up to 45 days later.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ticker": "<ticker>"
    },
    "name": "who_holds"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNoOutput wire format for this MCP call. Default 'toon' (Token-Oriented Notation, fewest tokens, best for tabular rows). 'compact' = minified JSON. 'json' = pretty JSON for readability. The REST API always returns JSON regardless.
tickerYesStock ticker, e.g. AAPL, KO, GOOGL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description focuses on non-obvious behavior: data is as of quarter end but filed up to 45 days later, and holdings linkage depends on exact issuer-name matching. These are the caveats that would otherwise cause an agent to misread freshness or silently miss a company.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the resource and returned fields, then tightens with the eligibility constraint and the fallback tool, closing with the as-of caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; only slight trim would improve it.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned metrics and the timing caveat, covering what an agent needs to interpret results. It does not say what happens when a ticker is not on the roster (error versus empty result), which is the one gap for a single-required-parameter lookup tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the description adds no format or ticker syntax detail beyond what the schema provides. The only added meaning is implicit – ticker must resolve to a roster company – which the schema does not encode. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: which tracked investors hold a company, from latest SEC Form 13F, and enumerates the returned metrics (value in USD, shares, portfolio weight, quarter-over-quarter share change). It also names the sibling it is not (get_investor_portfolio), so it is distinguishable without opening any schema.

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?

States applicability explicitly – works only for companies on the autario company roster, matched by exact issuer name – and gives the fallback: for any other security use get_investor_portfolio and filter by CUSIP. Both the when-to-use and the exclusion/alternative are spelled out.

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

All autario-mcp toolsInspect
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