Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
filingrail-mcp

filingrail-mcp

by adamhudson777
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

health

Verify the Filingrail API is live and responding, returning {status: 'ok'} when the service is available for SEC EDGAR filing data requests.

Instructions

Check Filingrail API health. Returns {status: 'ok'} if live.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "health"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

A4/5.0
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 usefully discloses the success return shape ({status: 'ok'} if live), which is real value beyond structured fields. It does not, however, describe the failure mode (error vs. a non-ok status), auth requirements, or whether the call has any side effects.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the expected response. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter probe with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the check and the success payload. The only meaningful gap is the non-live/error behavior, which an agent would need in order to interpret a failure.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies, and no parameter-related deficiency exists.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Filingrail API health'), which is unambiguous and instantly distinguishable from the sibling data-retrieval tools (get_financials, search_companies, get_recent_filings). No agent could confuse this diagnostic probe with a data fetch.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: a health endpoint is intuitively used to verify connectivity before or during other calls, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use trigger, no when-not, and no named alternative. Adequate context for a zero-argument probe, but nothing instructive.

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