Skip to main content
Glama

get_network_analysis

Analyze board interlocks and shareholder relationships in the Spanish stock exchange to identify corporate connections and influence patterns.

Instructions

Get comprehensive network analysis of board interlocks and shareholder relationships

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Main handler function implementing the get_network_analysis tool logic. Fetches board interlocks, shareholder data, computes network metrics, and generates governance risk factors.
    async getComplexNetworkAnalysis(): Promise<any> {
      const companies = await this.db.getAllCompanies();
      const directors = await this.db.getBoardInterlocks();
      const shareholders = await this.db.getShareholderOverlap();
    
      // Calculate network metrics
      const directorNetworkMetrics = this.calculateDirectorNetworkMetrics(directors);
      const shareholderNetworkMetrics = this.calculateShareholderNetworkMetrics(shareholders);
    
      return {
        director_network: directorNetworkMetrics,
        shareholder_network: shareholderNetworkMetrics,
        cross_ownership_analysis: shareholders,
        governance_risk_factors: await this.getGovernanceRiskFactors(companies, directors)
      };
    }
  • Tool schema definition including name, description, and empty input schema for get_network_analysis.
    {
      name: 'get_network_analysis',
      description: 'Get comprehensive network analysis of board interlocks and shareholder relationships',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {},
      },
    },
  • src/index.ts:649-651 (registration)
    Tool registration in the CallToolRequestSchema switch statement, dispatching to the analytics handler.
    case 'get_network_analysis':
      result = await this.analytics.getComplexNetworkAnalysis();
      break;
  • Helper function to calculate director network metrics from interlocks data.
    private calculateDirectorNetworkMetrics(interlocks: any[]): any {
      // Analyze existing interlock data
      const totalInterlocks = interlocks.length;
      const topDirectors = interlocks.slice(0, 10);
      
      // Calculate sector distribution
      const sectorConnections = new Map();
      interlocks.forEach(interlock => {
        const companies = interlock.companies.split(',');
        // Note: We'd need sector information to do proper sector analysis
        // This is simplified for the API-based approach
      });
    
      return {
        total_interlocks: totalInterlocks,
        interlocked_directors: topDirectors,
        most_connected_directors: topDirectors.slice(0, 5),
        network_density: totalInterlocks > 0 ? totalInterlocks / 35 : 0 // IBEX 35 companies
      };
    }
  • Helper function to compute governance risk factors based on interlocks and company data.
    private async getGovernanceRiskFactors(companies: any[], interlocks: any[]): Promise<any> {
      // Analyze companies for governance red flags
      const redFlags: any[] = [];
    
      companies.forEach(company => {
        // Check for high director interlocks
        const companyInterlocks = interlocks.filter(interlock => 
          interlock.companies.includes(company.symbol)
        );
    
        if (companyInterlocks.length > 3) {
          redFlags.push({
            company: company.symbol,
            risk_type: 'high_director_interlocks',
            description: `Company has ${companyInterlocks.length} interlocked directors`,
            severity: 'medium'
          });
        }
    
        // Check market cap for concentration risk
        if (company.market_cap && company.market_cap > 50000000000) { // 50B EUR
          redFlags.push({
            company: company.symbol,
            risk_type: 'market_dominance',
            description: `Large market cap may indicate market concentration`,
            severity: 'low'
          });
        }
      });
    
      return {
        governance_red_flags: redFlags.sort((a, b) => 
          (b.severity === 'high' ? 3 : b.severity === 'medium' ? 2 : 1) - 
          (a.severity === 'high' ? 3 : a.severity === 'medium' ? 2 : 1)
        ),
        total_red_flags: redFlags.length,
        high_risk_companies: redFlags.filter(f => f.severity === 'high').length
      };
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves analysis but doesn't specify if it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or describes the return format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves complex data retrieval.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the complexity implied by 'comprehensive network analysis' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'comprehensive' entails, the scope of analysis, or the expected output format, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary details beyond the schema.

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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('comprehensive network analysis of board interlocks and shareholder relationships'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_board_interlocks' or 'get_shareholder_overlap', which appear related, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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, such as the sibling tools 'get_board_interlocks' or 'get_shareholder_overlap'. It lacks any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/anbrme/ibex35-mcp-server'

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