Skip to main content
Glama

nzxplorer-mcp

by io.github.mambaventures
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_substantial_holders

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get substantial shareholders (5%+ voting rights) for an NZX company from NZX disclosure notices. ~267 records across ~85 issuers. Shows entity name, entity type (individual/company/trust/fund), voting rights percentage, shares held, whether they are also a director/executive, disclosure dates, and threshold crossing history. Use for block holder analysis, activist investor tracking, M&A signal detection (accumulation patterns), and ownership concentration analysis. Complements get_shareholders (top-20 annual report data) with legally mandated real-time disclosures.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tickerYesNZX ticker symbol
include_ceasedNoSet to "true" to include former substantial holders who dropped below 5%

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe tool payload. Null when the call did not produce one — read meta.availability_status to find out why, and do not treat null as zero, empty or "none found".
metaYes
toolYesTool that produced this result.
schema_versionYesEnvelope contract version. Bumps only on a breaking shape change.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "The tool payload. Null when the call did not produce one — read meta.availability_status to find out why, and do not treat null as zero, empty or \"none found\"."
+    },
+    "meta": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {
+        "availability_status": {
+          "description": "ok: complete payload. truncated: payload exceeded the transport cap and was cut. parse_failed: payload is text this server could not parse as JSON. error: the tool raised.",
+          "enum": [
+            "ok",
+            "truncated",
+            "parse_failed",
+            "error"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "encoding": {
+          "description": "toon = pipe-delimited tabular encoding; header row names the columns.",
+          "enum": [
+            "json",
+            "toon"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "provenance": {
+          "description": "Whether the figures can cite a source document. \"undeclared\" means no claim has been made for this endpoint yet — it is not a claim that the data is unsourced.",
+          "enum": [
+            "direct",
+            "label",
+            "reachable",
+            "none",
+            "undeclared"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "retrieved_at": {
+          "description": "When this platform produced the answer — NOT the as-at date of the data.",
+          "format": "date-time",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "warnings": {
+          "items": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "retrieved_at",
+        "availability_status",
+        "provenance"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "schema_version": {
+      "description": "Envelope contract version. Bumps only on a breaking shape change.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "description": "Tool that produced this result.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "schema_version",
+    "tool",
+    "data",
+    "meta"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: approximate dataset size (~267 records across ~85 issuers), the types of fields returned, and the fact that this is legally mandated disclosure data. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by data contents, use cases, and a comparison with the sibling tool. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tightened without losing meaning.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the data source, coverage, fields, use cases, and relationship to get_shareholders. The annotations cover idempotency and safety, and the schema covers both parameters, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters are already described in the schema: ticker is an NZX ticker symbol, and include_ceased toggles former substantial holders. The description adds some related context about threshold crossing history but does not materially expand on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource (substantial shareholders for an NZX company), and precise scope (5%+ voting rights from NZX disclosure notices). It also distinguishes itself from the closely related get_shareholders by noting the difference between legally mandated real-time disclosures and top-20 annual report data.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit use cases (block holder analysis, activist investor tracking, M&A signal detection, ownership concentration analysis) and names get_shareholders as a complementary alternative. It clearly positions this tool as the real-time disclosure source versus annual report data, though it does not state an explicit 'when not to use' condition.

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

All nzxplorer-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