@munispot/mcp

get_financials

Retrieve ACFR financial line items by EIN, with optional filters for fiscal year, fund type, and statement type to analyze municipal financial details.

Instructions

Get detailed financial line items from ACFR statements. Pro/Enterprise tier only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ein": "<ein>"
    },
    "name": "get_financials"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ein`	Yes	Employer Identification Number
`fund_type`	No	Fund type filter
`fiscal_year`	No	Fiscal year
`statement_type`	No	Statement type filter

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

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 discloses the meaningful access constraint (Pro/Enterprise tier gating) and implies a read-only retrieval, but says nothing about what happens without entitlement, result volume, or pagination for what is described as 'detailed' line items.

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 with zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the access qualifier. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With four fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what it returns ('detailed financial line items'). However, it never explains what an ACFR statement is or how line items are organized, which an agent may need to interpret results across a statement_type filter.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (ein, fund_type, fiscal_year, statement_type) is already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description's reference to ACFR statements subtly contextualizes statement_type but adds no format, allowed-value, or filtering semantics 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Get detailed financial line items from ACFR statements.' This clearly separates it from siblings like get_scores_history or get_economy, which cover different data domains. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it replaces, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 only guidance is the access constraint 'Pro/Enterprise tier only,' which is a prerequisite rather than usage guidance. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over get_economy or compare_municipalities, and no scenario or exclusion is given.

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

Deploy Server