Skip to main content
Glama
openpharma-org

European Financial Filings MCP Server

by openpharma-org
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.0.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    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.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    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.

    Tool Count2/5

    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.

    Completeness3/5

    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.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, data freshness, or error handling. It only mentions the data source and geographic coverage, omitting any operational behaviors. The description is essentially a high-level capability statement with no caveats or detailed semantics.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Some redundancy exists ("European financial filings" vs "EU regulated markets"), but it is not verbose or cluttered. It earns a 4 for clarity without waste.

    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 tool's complexity (18 parameters, 21 methods, nested objects), the description is too high-level to be complete. It doesn't explain how methods relate, provide example workflows, or set expectations about output formats. The schema helps but doesn't compensate for the lack of practical usage context.

    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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter includes a description listing applicable methods. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden, and the description doesn't detract.

    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 identifies the tool as a unified access point for European financial filings via ESEF, specifying the resource (company filings, financial statements, XBRL data) and the API source (filings.xbrl.org). It is a specific verb+resource statement, though it doesn't differentiate from siblings (none listed), which is why it doesn't get a 5.

    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 vs alternatives or how to choose among the 21 methods. The only usage hints are embedded in the schema's parameter descriptions, but the tool description itself offers no direction, prerequisites, or context for method selection.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

eu-filings-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

eu-filings-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/openpharma-org/eu-filings-mcp-server'

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