Skip to main content
Glama
Gonzih

mcp-opencorporates

by Gonzih

get_company_filings

Retrieve a company's filing history including dates, types, and descriptions. Access filings from 140+ jurisdictions using OpenCorporates.

Instructions

Get the filing history for a specific company. Returns filings with dates, types, and descriptions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jurisdiction_codeYesJurisdiction code (e.g. 'us_de', 'gb', 'de')
company_numberYesCompany registration number
pageNoPage number for pagination (default 1)

Implementation Reference

  • TypeScript interface defining the input arguments for get_company_filings: jurisdiction_code (string), company_number (string), and page (optional number).
    interface GetCompanyFilingsArgs {
      jurisdiction_code: string;
      company_number: string;
      page?: number;
    }
  • src/index.ts:169-188 (registration)
    Registration of the 'get_company_filings' tool in the ListToolsRequestSchema handler, including its description and input JSON schema (jurisdiction_code, company_number required; page optional).
    {
      name: "get_company_filings",
      description:
        "Get the filing history for a specific company. Returns filings with dates, types, and descriptions.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          jurisdiction_code: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Jurisdiction code (e.g. 'us_de', 'gb', 'de')",
          },
          company_number: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Company registration number",
          },
          page: { type: "number", description: "Page number for pagination (default 1)" },
        },
        required: ["jurisdiction_code", "company_number"],
      },
    },
  • Handler implementation for the 'get_company_filings' tool. Calls OpenCorporates API at /companies/{jurisdiction_code}/{company_number}/filings, maps the response to title/date/filing_type/description/opencorporates_url, and returns as JSON text.
    case "get_company_filings": {
      const { jurisdiction_code, company_number, page } = args as unknown as GetCompanyFilingsArgs;
      if (!jurisdiction_code || !company_number)
        throw new Error("Parameters 'jurisdiction_code' and 'company_number' are required");
    
      const data = (await apiFetch(
        `/companies/${jurisdiction_code}/${encodeURIComponent(company_number)}/filings`,
        { page }
      )) as { results: { filings: Array<{ filing: Record<string, unknown> }> } };
    
      const filings = data.results?.filings ?? [];
      if (filings.length === 0) return textResult("No filings found for this company.");
    
      const out = filings.map(({ filing: f }) => ({
        title: f["title"],
        date: f["date"],
        filing_type: f["filing_type"],
        description: f["description"],
        opencorporates_url: f["opencorporates_url"],
      }));
      return textResult(JSON.stringify(out, null, 2));
    }
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states return content but omits details like read-only nature (likely safe), pagination via the 'page' parameter, or error conditions. This is adequate but lacks depth for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no fluff. Every word adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains return format but omits pagination behavior and error handling. For a simple list tool, it's minimally viable but could include details on the page parameter's effect.

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%, so the existing parameter descriptions are sufficient. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what's in the input schema, meeting the baseline.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'filing history for a specific company', and explicitly mentions returned fields (dates, types, descriptions). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_company (single company info) and get_company_officers (officers list).

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?

The description implies usage for obtaining filing history of a specific company, but no explicit when-not or alternative tools are mentioned. An agent must infer from tool names alone; no guidance on when to prefer this over search_companies or get_company is given.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Gonzih/mcp-opencorporates'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server