hub-equity-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_validation_results

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve XBRL filing validation checks and unreconciled totals to see if the balance sheet balances or which calculations fail.

Instructions

Surface the checks Hub-Equity ran on the numbers of a filing.

Check types: accounting_equation (Assets = Liabilities + Equity), calculation_filing and calculation (a parent of the issuer's calculation linkbase against the weighted sum of its children), hub_calculation (consistency of the standardized roll-ups) and dqc_* (XBRL US data-quality rules, reported as info).

validation_type is one of: accounting_equation (Assets = Liabilities + Equity), calculation and calculation_filing (XBRL calc linkbase parent ≈ Σ children × weight), dqc_cf_sign and dqc_0015_never_negative (XBRL US Data Quality Committee sign rules). A calculation error means the check could not reconcile the parent with the child values as Hub-Equity extracted them. It is NOT a finding that the issuer's statements are wrong: report it as an unreconciled check, and open the filing before drawing any conclusion about the company.

Default status_filter = ["warning", "error"]. Provide ["valid","skipped"] to also see silent successes.

Provide at least one of filing_id or entity_id. Returns sorted by severity desc then |relative_difference| desc, capped at 100 rows.

Use when the user asks "did the balance sheet balance?" / "which totals of this filing does the check fail to reconcile?".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entity_id`	No
`filing_id`	No
`fiscal_year`	No
`status_filter`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the default filter hides valid/skipped rows, an 'error' is an unreconciled check rather than a finding that the issuer is wrong, and results are sorted by severity then |relative_difference| and capped at 100 rows.

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 check-type taxonomy is stated twice in near-identical prose (the check-type paragraph and the validation_type enumeration), duplicating definitions of accounting_equation and calculation. The content is useful but the repetition costs efficiency.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description usefully adds ordering and row-cap semantics, usage triggers, and parameter guidance. Only fiscal_year's meaning is left uncovered.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and largely does: it enumerates validation_type values, explains status_filter defaults and accepted values, and states the filing_id/entity_id requirement. fiscal_year is left undocumented, so it is not quite complete.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('surface the checks Hub-Equity ran on the numbers of a filing'), and the enumerated check types let an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_data_quality_grade and get_calculation_tree.

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?

It gives explicit trigger questions ('did the balance sheet balance?') and a hard prerequisite ('provide at least one of filing_id or entity_id'), plus the default status_filter behavior. It does not name a sibling alternative for when validation results are the wrong tool, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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