SEC提出書類の全文をClaudeで検索できるようにするMCPサーバーです。
Claudeに*「今年の10-Kで、どの企業がagentic AIについて言及しましたか？」*と尋ねると、EDGARを直接検索します — 235件の実在する提出書類へのリンク付きです。
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/afa2e1e5-ee79-42ad-a736-6f016b8f6c64
EDGARはCIKという、人間には意味がなくAPIにはすべてである10桁の識別子で振り分けます。当然の設計では、CIKをツールのパラメータとして受け、modelにこれを提示させます。これは最悪のかたちで失敗します。言語モデルは、覚えていない企業のCIKを自信を持って捏造してしまい、間違った企業のサブミッッションは正しい企業のサブミッションとまったくどう見えてしまいます。形式も正しく、もっともらしく、そして完全に間違っており、その間違いを伝える手がかりは何もありません。そこで、担当するツールはティッカーか企業名を受け、コード内でSECの自身のマッピングファイルを使って解決します。名前が曖昧な場合（「American」は66社に一致する）、リゾルバは最良スコアの候補を選びまし正しい候補リストを返し、Claudeがどちらを意図しているのかを尋ねます。モデルは簡単な場合は、文脈から扱い、間違った場合はコードが捕捉します。
Related MCP server: Aegis Gov SEC Filings MCP
npm install -g @alinarashid/edgar-mcpclaude_desktop_config.json に追加します。
{
"mcpServers": {
"edgar": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@alinarashid/edgar-mcp"],
"env": {
"SEC_USER_AGENT": "your-app your@email.com"
}
}
}
}SEC_USER_AGENT は必須です。SEC は呼び出し元を特定できないリクエストを拒否します。どのヘッダー不明の場合は、結果が空のではなく 403 が返されます。
Claude Desktop を再起動します。
search_filings — 2001年以降のすべての提出書を対象にした全文検索です。フォーム、日付範囲、企業の種別で絞り込めます。提出企業、フォーム、日付、およびドキュメントのリンクを返します。
list_company_filings — 1社の提出書を新しい順に表示します。ティッカーまたは企業名を受け付けます。フォームタイプでフィルターしないと、ほとんどがフォーム4のインサイダー取引になります。
今年に「agentic AI」に言及した10-K提出企業はどこですか。
American Airlines の最近の四半期報告を見せて。
2026年の8-Kの提出書類で「material weakness」に言及したものを見つけて。
検索はメタデータを返し、テキストは返しません。 どの提出書が一致するかはわ分かりますが、その中に書かれている内容ははではありません。文章を読むにはURLを参照してください。
良い順位はキーワードの関連性に基づくため、企業規模とは関係ありません。 しと、そのフレーズを繰り返す短い提出書は、そのフレーズを指摘するだけの300ページの10-Kよりも上位に表示されます。
公開企業のみ です。非公開の会社はSECに提出する書類がありません。
企業内を検索すると、そのCIKでタグ付けされた第三者の提出書も含まれます。 外部のグループが提出した株主提案書などが挙げられます。
efts.sec.gov の全文エンドポイントは文書化されていません — SEC はパラメータ一覧、レスポンススキーマ、安定性の保証を公開していません。このパッケージは堅牢に読み取ることを意図しているため、裏形式が変更された場合には更新が必要になることがあります。
リクエストは直列化され、毎秒お約8件に制されています。これはSECが公表している上限である毎秒10件を下回ります。
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.
