European Financial Filings MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| UK_COMPANIES_HOUSE_API_KEY | No | Free API key from Companies House (https://developer.company-information.service.gov.uk/). Required for UK Companies House methods. |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| eu-filingsC | Unified tool for European financial filings via ESEF (European Single Electronic Format): access company filings, financial statements, and XBRL data from EU regulated markets. Provides comprehensive access to financial reports from 27+ European countries using the filings.xbrl.org API. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusing tools with overlapping purposes. The tool's description clearly states its unified role for European financial filings, leaving no ambiguity.
The single tool name 'eu-filings' is clear and descriptive, using a geographic prefix and resource type. There are no other tools to introduce inconsistency, so the naming is perfectly coherent.
The server covers a very broad domain (EU financial filings across 27+ countries) with only one tool, which feels insufficient. A well-scoped server for this purpose would typically have separate tools for searching, retrieving, and inspecting filings and XBRL data.
The description claims comprehensive access, but the single-tool design leaves uncertainty about whether all necessary operations (e.g., search, filter, download, detail views) are fully covered. It likely handles core retrieval, but any missing operation would be a significant gap.