Retrieve a SZSE-listed company's disclosures directly from szse.cn by ticker or name, with optional year, title, and limit filters. Returns filings and count or an error.
List a SZSE-listed company's disclosures directly from szse.cn.
Returns: {filings, count} or {error}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| ticker_or_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the live upstream source (szse.cn) which is genuine added context, but says nothing about rate limits, pagination, or how the default limit=20 behaves. The stated return shape largely duplicates the output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. The second sentence is brief but redundant with the existing output schema, which mildly dilutes the otherwise efficient structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 not be re-explained (the description's return line is unnecessary). The real gap is the four undocumented, description-free parameters for a read tool with no annotations; the definition is minimally adequate but incomplete on filtering behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters (ticker_or_name, year, title, limit), and the description supplies no clarification. It never explains that year/title are filters or what limit controls, so an agent must guess parameter semantics from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (a SZSE-listed company's disclosures) with source scope (directly from szse.cn). This cleanly separates it from the many sibling list_*_filings tools (list_sse_filings, list_bse_filings, list_csrc_filings, generic list_filings) because the exchange and data source are named.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied — an agent can infer you call this to retrieve SZSE disclosures — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or comparison against list_filings / get_szse_section / get_szse_company. No preconditions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.