Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

EDGAR + Entity: US Company Research

by io.github.pgeneralpl
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Supported state registries & licenses

list_supported_states
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the state business-entity registries supported by lookup_business_entity, with dataset ids, coverage caveats, update frequency, and license/commercial-use terms.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_supported_states"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
supportedYes
not_supportedYes
colorado_disclaimerNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "colorado_disclaimer": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "not_supported": {
+      "additionalProperties": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "propertyNames": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "supported": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "properties": {
+          "api": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "code": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "commercial_use": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "dataset": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "dataset_url": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "license": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "state": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "code",
+          "state"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "supported",
+    "not_supported"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that coverage caveats and license terms are surfaced, which is relevant context, but much of the return-content detail overlaps with the existing output schema rather than disclosing new behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the primary purpose first and the enumerated metadata second. Every clause carries information; there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description supplies everything needed: what the list contains, which tool it relates to, and the caveat/license dimensions an agent should inspect. No essential context is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 and resource: lists the state business-entity registries supported by lookup_business_entity. It also enumerates the accompanying metadata (dataset ids, coverage caveats, update frequency, license terms), so an agent can distinguish this discovery tool from the data-returning siblings like lookup_business_entity or get_company_profile.

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 link to lookup_business_entity makes the usage context clear: this is the reference/metadata companion to that tool, useful for checking coverage and commercial-use licensing before relying on a registry. It does not explicitly state when-not to call it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 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