This tool empowers MCP-compatible clients (like Cursor and Claude Desktop) with professional-grade capabilities for financial data extraction, and report analysis.
Full-text keyword search across financial reports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | Number of fragments to return, default 5, max 1000 | |
| market | No | Market: 'CN-A' | 'HK'. Optional. Omit to search all markets. | |
| pageMax | No | Maximum page number (inclusive), optional | |
| pageMin | No | Minimum page number (inclusive), optional | |
| keywords | Yes | 1-5 keywords for full-text search | |
| matchMode | No | Match mode: ANY (default) / ALL / MOST (at least 70%) | |
| stockCode | No | Stock code from searchCompanyInfo. CN-A: 6 digits; HK: 5 digits. Omit for cross-company search. | |
| reportType | No | Report type, e.g. 2025a4 (annual), 2026h2 (interim). Required when stockCode is omitted. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotation Contradiction: the description presents the tool as a pure read/search operation ('Full-text keyword search', 'read that page'), while annotations declare destructiveHint=true. The description never clarifies whether the search can modify or delete data, so the agent receives conflicting safety signals.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is longer than average, but it is densely structured with an explicit strategy and critical rules. Every section prevents a specific invocation error, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the tactical guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all invocation-critical behavior: when to use it, prerequisites, language rules, code formats, and required parameters. The main gap is the lack of an output schema and only indirect mention of the return shape ('returned page number'), leaving fragment contents and matching results somewhat underspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Even though the schema covers all parameters, the description adds decisive constraints: 1-5 keywords only, no full sentences, language alignment (Simplified Chinese for CN-A, English for HK), reportType formats like '2025a4'/'2026h2', stock code digit rules, and reportType required for cross-company searches. This materially improves correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific action and resource — 'Full-text keyword search across financial reports' — and then sharpens the boundary by referencing sibling tools. It clearly distinguishes this tool from getFinancialReportPages and searchCompanyInfo, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The strategy section is an explicit decision tree: use this tool for specific facts or locating sections, skip it for TOC or known page numbers, and call searchCompanyInfo first when the company is unknown. It names the alternatives and the exact conditions that route to them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read full page content from a financial report by page range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market | No | Market: 'CN-A' | 'HK'. Optional. Omit to search all markets. | |
| pageCount | No | Number of pages to return, default 5, max 5 | |
| startPage | Yes | Start page (1-based) | |
| stockCode | Yes | Stock code from searchCompanyInfo. CN-A: 6 digits; HK: 5 digits. | |
| reportType | Yes | Report type, e.g. 2025a4 (annual), 2026h2 (interim) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description presents the operation as a read ('Read full page content'), but annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. There is no mention of destructive effects or why the tool is classified as destructive, directly contradicting the description. Annotation Contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is organized with a clear summary, strategy, and critical_rules sections and front-loads the core purpose. Some redundancy exists (pageCount limits, market optionality, report types appear in both strategy and critical_rules), so it is not maximally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool provides extensive operational context: data availability, workflows, and formatting conventions. However, there is no output schema and the description never explains the returned structure (e.g., page text, page numbers, metadata), leaving a gap for an agent trying to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial semantics: startPage is 1-based, pageCount defaults to 5 max 5, report type patterns ('2025a4', '2026h2'), CN-A/HK digit counts, and a warning not to invent padding. This materially improves correct parameter construction.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Read full page content from a financial report by page range.' The strategy and critical rules further clarify it is a page-range retrieval tool, distinguishing it from the sibling search tools (financialKeywordSearch searches by keyword; searchCompanyInfo resolves company identities).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Strategy explicitly states when to use each mode: known startPage from keyword/TOC, TOC discovery with startPage=1, and when to call searchCompanyInfo first for unknown company names. Critical rule 5 tells the agent to prefer financialKeywordSearch for specific facts, establishing a clear alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search listed companies by name or stock code. Resolves a company to stockCode and market.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | Result size, max 100, default 5 | |
| query | Yes | Company name or stock code | |
| market | Yes | Market: 'CN-A' | 'HK'. Required. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description presents this as a read-only search operation, but the annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. This directly contradicts the described behavior, so the definition cannot be trusted regarding side effects. Annotation Contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a front-loaded purpose statement followed by compact strategy and critical-rules blocks. Every sentence carries distinct information, and there is no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a three-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, this description is complete enough for correct invocation: it specifies query semantics, required market values, code formats, return fields, and how the tool fits into the larger workflow. Nothing needed for calling it is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds useful semantics beyond the schema: query can be a company name or stock code, market must be CN-A or HK with one market per call, code formats per market are specified, and the return array fields are listed. These additions genuinely help an agent invoke the tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Search listed companies by name or stock code' and the resolution goal: 'Resolves a company to stockCode and market.' The strategy block clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools by positioning it as the mandatory first lookup step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this FIRST when the user mentions a company by name or a short/unknown code.' It also explains what to do with the result, names downstream sibling tools, and provides a fallback hint for language mismatch. This is strong routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
financialKeywordSearch2 fields changedInput schema / properties / market / descriptionPrevious value: -"Market: 'CN-A' | 'HK' | 'US'. Optional. Omit to search all markets."New value: +"Market: 'CN-A' | 'HK'. Optional. Omit to search all markets."Input schema / properties / stockCode / descriptionPrevious value: -"Stock code from searchCompanyInfo. CN-A: 6 digits; HK: 5 digits; US: uppercase ticker. Omit for cross-company search."New value: +"Stock code from searchCompanyInfo. CN-A: 6 digits; HK: 5 digits. Omit for cross-company search."getFinancialReportPages2 fields changedInput schema / properties / market / descriptionPrevious value: -"Market: 'CN-A' | 'HK' | 'US'. Optional. Omit to search all markets."New value: +"Market: 'CN-A' | 'HK'. Optional. Omit to search all markets."Input schema / properties / stockCode / descriptionPrevious value: -"Stock code from searchCompanyInfo. CN-A: 6 digits; HK: 5 digits; US: uppercase ticker."New value: +"Stock code from searchCompanyInfo. CN-A: 6 digits; HK: 5 digits."searchCompanyInfo1 field changedInput schema / properties / market / descriptionPrevious value: -"Market: 'CN-A' | 'HK' | 'US'. Required."New value: +"Market: 'CN-A' | 'HK'. Required."searchCompanyInfo1 field changedInput schema / properties / market / descriptionPrevious value: -"Market: 'CN-A' | 'HK' | 'US'. Required. If no hit, retry another market."New value: +"Market: 'CN-A' | 'HK' | 'US'. Required."financialKeywordSearch8 fields changedInput schema / properties / keywords / descriptionPrevious value: -"关键词列表(1-5个),用于全文检索"New value: +"1-5 keywords for full-text search"Input schema / properties / marketAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Market: 'CN-A' | 'HK' | 'US'. Optional. Omit to search all markets.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / matchMode / descriptionPrevious value: -"匹配模式:'ANY'(任一,默认)/'ALL'(全部)/'MOST'(至少70%)"New value: +"Match mode: ANY (default) / ALL / MOST (at least 70%)"Input schema / properties / pageMax / descriptionPrevious value: -"最大页码(含),仅返回页码<=此值的结果,可选"New value: +"Maximum page number (inclusive), optional"Input schema / properties / pageMin / descriptionPrevious value: -"最小页码(含),仅返回页码>=此值的结果,可选"New value: +"Minimum page number (inclusive), optional"Input schema / properties / reportType / descriptionPrevious value: -"报告类型标识符(当前已支持如:2023a4,2024a4,2025a4),可选,不指定则检索所有报告"New value: +"Report type, e.g. 2025a4 (annual), 2026h2 (interim). Required when stockCode is omitted."Input schema / properties / size / descriptionPrevious value: -"返回片段数量,默认5,最大1000"New value: +"Number of fragments to return, default 5, max 1000"Input schema / properties / stockCode / descriptionPrevious value: -"股票代码,如'000001',可选,不指定则全市场检索"New value: +"Stock code from searchCompanyInfo. CN-A: 6 digits; HK: 5 digits; US: uppercase ticker. Omit for cross-company search."getFinancialReportPages5 fields changedInput schema / properties / marketAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Market: 'CN-A' | 'HK' | 'US'. Optional. Omit to search all markets.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / pageCount / descriptionPrevious value: -"返回页数（最多5页）"New value: +"Number of pages to return, default 5, max 5"Input schema / properties / reportType / descriptionPrevious value: -"报告类型标识符(当前已支持如:2023a4,2024a4,2025a4)"New value: +"Report type, e.g. 2025a4 (annual), 2026h2 (interim)"Input schema / properties / startPage / descriptionPrevious value: -"起始页码"New value: +"Start page (1-based)"Input schema / properties / stockCode / descriptionPrevious value: -"股票代码"New value: +"Stock code from searchCompanyInfo. CN-A: 6 digits; HK: 5 digits; US: uppercase ticker."getFinancialStatementsStartPagesgetReportChapterssearchCompanyInfo4 fields changedInput schema / properties / marketAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Market: 'CN-A' | 'HK' | 'US'. Required. If no hit, retry another market.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / query / descriptionPrevious value: -"公司名称或股票代码"New value: +"Company name or stock code"Input schema / properties / size / descriptionPrevious value: -"返回结果数量，最大 100，默认 5"New value: +"Result size, max 100, default 5"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "query"
-]New value: +[
+ "query",
+ "market"
+]financialKeywordSearchgetFinancialReportPagesgetFinancialStatementsStartPagesgetReportChapterssearchCompanyInfoClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: resolving a company to a stock code, searching for keywords within reports, and reading report pages. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names use camelCase and are descriptive, with searchCompanyInfo and getFinancialReportPages following a verb-noun pattern. financialKeywordSearch is a minor deviation since it reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb-led action.
Three tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose: company lookup, keyword search, and page retrieval form a complete minimal workflow. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The core workflow of finding a company, searching for facts, and reading report pages is fully covered. The main gap is the lack of a tool to enumerate available reports or report types, but the embedded strategy guidance mostly works around this.