Skip to main content
Glama
openpharma-org

SEC EDGAR MCP Server

sec-edgar

Access and analyze SEC EDGAR filings to retrieve company financial data, search filings, and examine XBRL metrics for regulatory compliance and financial research.

Instructions

Unified tool for SEC EDGAR (Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval) operations: access company filings, financial statements, and XBRL data from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Provides comprehensive access to public company disclosures, financial metrics, and regulatory filings using the official SEC EDGAR API.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
methodYesThe operation to perform: search_companies (find companies by name/ticker), get_company_cik (convert ticker to CIK), get_company_submissions (filing history), get_company_facts (all XBRL financial data), get_company_concept (specific financial metric), get_frames_data (aggregated data across companies), filter_filings (filter filing results), get_dimensional_facts (get XBRL facts with dimensional context), search_facts_by_value (find facts around a target value with filters), build_fact_table (build comprehensive table of facts with dimensional analysis), time_series_dimensional_analysis (analyze subsegment revenue across time periods with geographic breakdowns)
queryNoFor search_companies: Company name or ticker symbol to search for (e.g., "Apple", "AAPL", "Microsoft")
tickerNoFor get_company_cik: Stock ticker symbol to convert to CIK (e.g., "AAPL", "MSFT", "TSLA")
cik_or_tickerNoFor get_company_submissions, get_company_facts, get_company_concept: Company CIK number (10-digit) or ticker symbol
taxonomyNoFor get_company_concept, get_frames_data: XBRL taxonomy (e.g., "us-gaap" for US GAAP, "dei" for Document Entity Information, "invest" for Investment Company)
tagNoFor get_company_concept, get_frames_data: XBRL concept tag (e.g., "Assets", "Revenues", "NetIncomeLoss", "StockholdersEquity")
unitNoFor get_frames_data: Unit of measure (e.g., "USD" for US Dollars, "shares" for share counts)
frameNoFor get_frames_data: Reporting frame in format like "CY2021Q4I" (Calendar Year 2021 Q4 Instant), "CY2021" (Calendar Year 2021), "Q1" (Q1 any year)
filingsNoFor filter_filings: Array of filing objects to filter (typically from get_company_submissions result)
form_typeNoFor filter_filings: Form type to filter by (e.g., "10-K" for annual reports, "10-Q" for quarterly, "8-K" for current reports)
start_dateNoFor filter_filings: Start date for filing date range in YYYY-MM-DD format
end_dateNoFor filter_filings: End date for filing date range in YYYY-MM-DD format
limitNoFor filter_filings: Maximum number of results to return
accession_numberNoSEC accession number of the specific filing to analyze (for get_dimensional_facts, search_facts_by_value, build_fact_table)
search_criteriaNoSearch criteria for finding dimensional facts (for get_dimensional_facts)
target_valueNoTarget value in dollars to search around (for search_facts_by_value, build_fact_table)
toleranceNoTolerance range (±) in dollars for matching values (for search_facts_by_value, build_fact_table)
filtersNoAdditional filters for fact searches (for search_facts_by_value)
optionsNoTable formatting and analysis options (for build_fact_table)
time_series_optionsNoOptions for time series dimensional analysis (for time_series_dimensional_analysis)
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'access' and 'operations,' it fails to describe critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response formats. For a tool interacting with an external API, this omission leaves the agent without necessary operational context.

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 appropriately concise—two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's scope and purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with key information. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing the main operation types, but this is minor.

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 high complexity (20 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks information about return values, error conditions, authentication, rate limits, and practical usage examples. For such a multifaceted tool, the description should provide more contextual guidance to help the agent understand how to effectively invoke it.

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 the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly with descriptions and examples. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 tool's purpose as providing 'comprehensive access to public company disclosures, financial metrics, and regulatory filings using the official SEC EDGAR API.' It specifies the domain (SEC EDGAR), resources (company filings, financial statements, XBRL data), and operations (access, retrieval). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings since none exist, so it cannot achieve a perfect 5 for sibling differentiation.

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. It describes what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. For a complex tool with 20 parameters and multiple methods, this lack of usage guidance is a significant gap.

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/openpharma-org/sec-mcp'

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