SEC EDGAR MCP

get_filing_content

Fetch paginated content of a specific SEC filing by company identifier and accession number, using offset and character limits to access the exact text you need.

Instructions

Get the content of a specific SEC filing with paging support.

Args: identifier: Company ticker symbol or CIK number accession_number: The accession number of the filing offset: Character offset into the filing content (default: 0) max_chars: Maximum number of characters to return (default: 50000)

Returns: Dictionary containing filing content page and pagination metadata

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": {
      "identifier": "<identifier>",
      "accession_number": "<accession_number>"
    },
    "name": "get_filing_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`offset`	No
`max_chars`	No
`identifier`	Yes
`accession_number`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.8May 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (dictionary with content page and pagination metadata) and explains paging support. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which would improve transparency.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, and the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. It is concise without unnecessary words, though it could potentially be slightly more compact without losing meaning.

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?

The description explains the parameters and return value, which is adequate for a straightforward data retrieval tool. However, it does not specify what the 'content' includes (e.g., raw HTML, text, structured data) nor how the pagination metadata is formatted. Given no output schema, these details would enhance completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section explains each parameter in detail: identifier as ticker or CIK, accession_number as the filing accession number, offset as character offset, and max_chars as maximum characters. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it retrieves the content of a specific SEC filing with paging support, using a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'filing content'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_filing_sections which likely returns sections instead of raw content.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_filing_sections or other analysis tools. It lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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