Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

sec_filing_sections

Extract specific 10-K, 10-Q, or 8-K item sections like Risk Factors or MD&A as clean text using an accession number plus CIK or ticker.

Instructions

Extract 10-K/10-Q/8-K item sections. Extracts item sections (e.g. 1A Risk Factors, 7 MD&A) from a 10-K/10-Q/8-K primary document as clean text. Provide accession plus cik or ticker.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cikNoSEC CIK (numeric or zero-padded)
itemsNoComma-separated item numbers to return, e.g. 1A,7
tickerNoTicker symbol (alternative to cik)
accessionYesAccession number
max_charsNoMax characters per section, default 20000, max 200000

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavior (output is "clean text" and content is narrowed to item sections), but it does not state that it is read-only, how missing/absent items are handled, or any limits beyond the schema's max_chars.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded, with no wasted clauses. Slight redundancy: the opening "Extract 10-K/10-Q/8-K item sections" largely restates the tool name before the more informative second sentence.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns; "as clean text" partially covers this. For a 5-parameter extraction tool with no annotations, the definition is adequate but thin on edge cases (missing items, document scope) and any sibling differentiation.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter (cik, ticker, items, accession, max_chars) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the accession/cik/ticker relationship, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Extract) and resource (10-K/10-Q/8-K item sections) and gives concrete examples (1A Risk Factors, 7 MD&A). It is clearly distinguishable from generic filing siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with sec_filing or sec_full_text_search.

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?

"Provide accession plus cik or ticker" tells the agent how to identify the target filing, which is some usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings like sec_filing (full document) or sec_full_text_search, so selection guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools