Skip to main content
Glama
SindaBNO

eu-filings

by SindaBNO
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.0.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusing it with another. The tool's purpose is clearly described, making selection unambiguous.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    The single tool name 'eu-filings' is descriptive but does not follow the typical verb_noun convention seen in well-designed MCP servers. With only one tool, there is no pattern to violate, but it also fails to establish a consistent naming style.

    Tool Count2/5

    A single tool is too few for a server that claims to provide comprehensive access to European financial filings across 27+ countries. The domain is complex and would benefit from separate tools for specific actions like retrieving filings, searching XBRL data, or fetching financial statements.

    Completeness2/5

    The server offers only a catch-all tool, lacking granular operations for distinct tasks such as searching, filtering, or comparing financial data. This creates significant gaps because agents cannot perform specific actions without relying on a single, overloaded interface.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the underlying API (filings.xbrl.org) and a geographic scope, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or any quirks related to the various methods.

    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?

    The description is concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the tool's primary purpose. It does not repeat schema information or add fluff, but it also omits structural detail about the multiple operation modes.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    With 21 methods, 18 parameters, no output schema, and no sibling context, the description is far too shallow to guide an agent through method selection and invocation. It only gives a high-level domain overview, leaving the agent to parse the large schema without additional context.

    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?

    The input schema provides descriptions for all 18 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the API source, so the schema carries the heavy lifting and the 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?

    The description clearly states it is a unified tool for European financial filings, giving access to company filings, financial statements, and XBRL data. It has a specific domain (ESEF) and this distinguishes it from unrelated tools, though it does not list the many specific operations.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are no sibling tools to differentiate from. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or which method to invoke for a given task.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

MCP_eu-fillings MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

MCP_eu-fillings MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/SindaBNO/MCP_eu-fillings'

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