Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@edgar-mcp Search 10-K filings from 2024 that mention "cybersecurity risks""
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
An MCP server that lets Claude search the full text of SEC filings.
Ask Claude "which companies discussed agentic AI in their 10-Ks this year?" and it searches EDGAR directly — 235 real filings, with links.
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/afa2e1e5-ee79-42ad-a736-6f016b8f6c64
EDGAR filters by CIK, a ten-digit identifier that means nothing to a human and everything to the API. The obvious design accepts a CIK as a tool parameter and lets the model supply it. That fails in the worst possible way: a language model will confidently invent a CIK for any company it hasn't memorized, and a wrong company's filings look exactly like the right company's — correctly formatted, plausible, and completely wrong, with nothing to signal the error. So the tools accept a ticker or company name and resolve it in code against the SEC's own mapping file. Where the name is ambiguous — "American" matches 66 companies — the resolver returns the candidate list rather than picking the best-scoring match, and Claude asks which one you meant. The model handles the easy cases through context; the code catches the ones it gets wrong.
Related MCP server: Aegis Gov SEC Filings MCP
npm install -g @alinarashid/edgar-mcpAdd to claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"edgar": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@alinarashid/edgar-mcp"],
"env": {
"SEC_USER_AGENT": "your-app your@email.com"
}
}
}
}SEC_USER_AGENT is required. The SEC rejects requests that don't identify
the caller, and a missing header returns 403 rather than an empty result.
Restart Claude Desktop.
search_filings — full-text search across every filing since 2001.
Filter by form type, date range, and company. Returns the filing company,
form, date, and a document link.
list_company_filings — one company's filings, newest first. Accepts a
ticker or name. Filter by form type, or you will mostly get Form 4 insider
trades.
Which companies mentioned "agentic AI" in their 10-K filings this year?
Show me American Airlines' recent quarterly reports.
Find 8-K filings from 2026 that mention "material weakness".
Search returns metadata, not text. It tells you which filings match, not what they say. Follow the URL to read the language.
Ranking is keyword relevance, not company size. A short filing that repeats a phrase outranks a 300-page 10-K that mentions it twice.
Public companies only. Private companies file nothing with the SEC.
Searching within a company includes third-party filings tagged with that CIK, such as shareholder proposals filed by outside groups.
The full-text endpoint at efts.sec.gov is undocumented — the SEC
publishes no parameter list, response schema, or stability guarantee. This
package reads defensively and may need updating if the shape changes.
Requests are serialized to roughly 8 per second, under the SEC's published ceiling of 10.
MIT
List filings a specific public company submitted, newest first. Use when the user names a company and wants its recent reports rather than searching for particular words. Accepts a ticker or company name and resolves it internally. Companies file constantly, mostly routine insider-trading forms, so filter by form type unless the user wants everything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| forms | No | Optional but recommended, e.g. ["10-K", "10-Q"]. Without it you mostly get Form 4 insider filings. | |
| limit | No | How many filings to return. Defaults to 10. | |
| company | Yes | Ticker ("AAPL") or company name ("Apple Inc."). Never pass a CIK; this tool looks it up. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses ordering (newest first), internal ticker/company resolution, and the fact that unfiltered results are dominated by Form 4 filings. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or return format, but 'List' makes this reasonably clear.
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?
Four concise sentences, each with a purpose: action/scope, usage context, company resolution, and filtering guidance. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
For a simple list tool with three well-documented parameters, the description covers selection criteria, invocation behavior, and filtering advice. It does not describe return fields, but with no output schema the agent can still reasonably infer it returns a list of filings. Slightly more detail on return shape would make it fully complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents company, forms, and limit, including the Form 4 warning. The description reinforces the ticker/company resolution and filter-by-form guidance, but does not add substantively new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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?
The description opens with 'List filings a specific public company submitted, newest first,' which clearly identifies the resource and operation. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search_filings by contrasting recent-reports-by-company with word-based searching.
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?
Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when the user names a company and wants its recent reports rather than searching for particular words.' It also gives practical guidance on filtering by form type, which helps the agent decide how to invoke it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search the full text of SEC filings from 2001 onward. Returns which filings contain the search terms, with the filing company, form type, date, and a link. Use this to find how public companies discuss a topic in their own words. IMPORTANT: returns filing metadata only, not the matching text; follow the URL to read what a filing says. Results rank by keyword relevance, not company size, so small companies often outrank large ones. Do not use for stock prices, financial figures, or private companies, which do not file with the SEC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| forms | No | Optional. Form types, e.g. ["10-K"] annual, ["10-Q"] quarterly, ["8-K"] material events, ["DEF 14A"] proxy. | |
| limit | No | How many filings to return. Defaults to 10. | |
| query | Yes | Search terms. Wrap in double quotes for an exact phrase, e.g. "agentic AI". Multiple bare words are treated as AND. | |
| company | No | Optional. Limit to one company by ticker ("AAPL") or name ("Apple Inc."). Never pass a CIK; this tool looks it up. | |
| end_date | No | Optional. Latest filing date, YYYY-MM-DD. | |
| start_date | No | Optional. Earliest filing date, YYYY-MM-DD. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers key behavioral traits: it returns metadata only (not matching text, so the URL must be followed) and ranks by keyword relevance rather than company size. These are genuine surprises the agent would not know from annotations or schema. It could add pagination or rate-limit details, but the core quirks are disclosed.
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?
The description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and return shape, then delivers use-case and exclusion guidance, then two critical behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds value; it is slightly long as a wall of text but well-organized and efficient.
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?
For a search tool with 6 params, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is comprehensive: it covers the date scope, return format, use case, exclusions, ranking behavior, and the metadata-only caveat. There are no obvious gaps for an agent to safely invoke this tool.
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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all 6 parameters including the company lookup behavior and the exact-phrase quote syntax. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the structured schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description uses a specific verb+resource combination ('Search the full text of SEC filings from 2001 onward') and clearly states what it returns (matching filings with company, form type, date, link). It distinguishes itself from the sibling list_company_filings by emphasizing full-text search across all filings vs. what appears to be a per-company listing function.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use it ('find how public companies discuss a topic in their own words') and provides clear exclusions ('Do not use for stock prices, financial figures, or private companies'). It lacks an explicit pointer to the sibling alternative tool, but the use-case framing and negative guidance are strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0list_company_filingssearch_filingsScored across 2 tools
The two tools are sharply distinct: one searches full-text across all filings, the other lists filings for a specific company. There is no overlap in purpose or likely misselection.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: search_filings and list_company_filings. The convention is uniform and predictable.
Two tools is at the thin end of the range, but the server's stated scope of accessing EDGAR filings can reasonably be covered by search and list operations. It feels minimal rather than bloated.
The tools cover discovery (keyword search and per-company listing) but lack any retrieval tool to actually read a filing's content. Search results intentionally return metadata only, and without a fetch-filing tool, agents cannot access the underlying text, creating a dead end.
SEC EDGAR filings for AI agents: company lookup, filings, financials, insider trades. No keys.
SEC EDGAR filings for AI agents: company lookup, filings, financials, insider trades. No keys.
Search SEC EDGAR filings, financial statements, and company data.
Scrape SEC EDGAR filings by company, form type, date, or full text. Pay per row.
