EDGAR + Entity: US Company Research

List SEC filings

list_filings

Read-onlyIdempotent

List a company's EDGAR filings newest-first, filtered by form type and filing-date range. Each row has form, accession, filed date, report period, primary document URL and filing index URL. Amendments (e.g. 10-K/A) are included when filtering by the base form unless include_amendments=false. Older history pages are fetched automatically when needed. Common forms: 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, DEF 14A, S-1, 4, 13D/G (SC 13D), 20-F, 6-K.

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": {
      "company": "<company>"
    },
    "name": "list_filings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`forms`	No	Form types to include, e.g. ['10-K','10-Q']. Omit for all.
`limit`	No
`offset`	No	Skip this many matching filings (pagination)
`company`	Yes	Ticker (AAPL), CIK (320193 or 0000320193), or company name. Names must resolve unambiguously; use search_company first if unsure.
`date_to`	No	Filed on/before (YYYY-MM-DD)
`date_from`	No	Filed on/after (YYYY-MM-DD)
`include_amendments`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cik`	Yes
`name`	No
`count`	Yes
`offset`	Yes
`filings`	Yes
`source_url`	No
`next_offset`	No	Pass as offset for the next page; absent on the last page

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 30, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "cik": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "count": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "filings": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "properties": {
+          "accession": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "filed": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "form": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "index_url": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "report_date": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "url": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "next_offset": {
+      "description": "Pass as offset for the next page; absent on the last page",
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "offset": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "source_url": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "cik",
+    "count",
+    "offset",
+    "filings"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower; the description adds valuable behavior: newest-first ordering, per-row field list, automatic fetching of older history pages, and amendment inclusion semantics. It doesn't discuss rate limits or truncation at the offset maximum of 5000.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then return shape, then edge behaviors (amendments, auto-pagination), then a compact valid-form list. No filler sentences; each clause adds usable information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no full explanation, and the brief row-field note is sufficient. Given 7 parameters and the amendment/pagination subtleties, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 71% schema coverage the description meaningfully supplements: it lists common form values (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, DEF 14A, S-1, 4, 13D/G, 20-F, 6-K) that the schema's free-form array lacks, and clarifies include_amendments vs base-form filtering. limit/offset remain documented only in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List a company's EDGAR filings') with scope ('newest-first, filtered by form type and filing-date range'). Clearly distinguished from sibling get_filing_document, which fetches document content rather than listing.

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?

Gives clear context for when this is the right tool (listing filings with optional form/date filters) and explains amendment-inclusion behavior. It does not explicitly route to alternatives like get_filing_document or search_company, which appear only in the schema description.

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

All EDGAR + Entity: US Company Research 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.