Annalist Financial Statements

Get the relationships of an entity

get_relationships

Read-onlyIdempotent

The links of one entity in Atlas, in both directions: the lenders of a company and the borrowers of a bank (with the commitment of each lender under each credit agreement where its schedule proves it), its customers and its suppliers (a supplier is a company whose own annual report names it as a major customer) with the share of revenue, owners and holdings with the interest, collaboration partners and named related parties. Every link gives its summary, the class of its evidence (stated by one party, confirmed by both, or stated by the register of legal entities), each claim with the part of the document that states it, and the documents with their addresses. A covered company also gets the links of the entities of its group (group: true, the default). Probable links are listed apart.

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": {
      "entity": "<entity>"
    },
    "name": "get_relationships"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`group`	No	include the links of the entities of the group of a covered company (default true)
`kinds`	No	kinds of link to return (default every kind)
`limit`	No	maximum number of links (default 100)
`entity`	Yes	entity id from search_entities, for example boeing, citigroup or dbs-bank-ltd
`direction`	No	from: links where the entity lends, sells or owns; to: where it borrows, buys or is owned (default both)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`as_of`	No
`kinds`	No
`links`	Yes
`entity`	Yes
`matched`	Yes
`citation`	Yes
`probable`	Yes
`truncated`	No
`conventions`	No
`group_entities`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: group links are included by default, evidence classes are classified three ways, and probable links are listed apart from confirmed ones — context an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core statement is front-loaded, but the text is one dense run-on laced with nested parentheticals, which makes it harder to scan than it needs to be. The information is relevant, yet some clauses could be split or trimmed without loss.

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?

For a five-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers scope, defaults, direction semantics, and the shape of returned evidence. Since the output schema exists, it need not enumerate return fields, so remaining gaps are minor.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description goes further: it explains what each kind actually means (a supplier is a company whose annual report names it as a major customer, partners, owners with interest) and spells out the 'from' versus 'to' direction semantics. That adds real meaning beyond the bare enum values and defaults in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource ('the links of one entity in Atlas, in both directions') and enumerates the link types it returns, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as find_connections or get_company_overview, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It establishes context (per-entity relationship lookup, both directions by default, probable links returned separately) but never states when to prefer it over find_connections or get_company_overview. Usage is implied by the resource described rather than prescribed.

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

All Annalist Financial Statements 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.

Resources

Need Help?