Skip to main content
Glama

ko-mcp

by io.github.SharpLu

sec_list_filings

List an entity's SEC filings from EDGAR (most recent first), each with its accession number. Provide the company's CIK (use search or get_stock_profile to find it). Returns accession numbers to pass to sec_get_filing_index / sec_get_filing_document.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoLatest filing date, ISO YYYY-MM-DD
cikYesCompany CIK number (e.g. '320193' for Apple)
fromNoEarliest filing date, ISO YYYY-MM-DD
limitNoMax filings to return
form_typeNoExact SEC form filter, e.g. '10-K', '13F-HR', '8-K'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists recent filings first and returns accession numbers, implying a read-only operation. It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but for a list tool, the key behaviors are clear.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and ordering. The second sentence provides prerequisite and downstream usage. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description explains what is returned (accession numbers) and how to use them, including ordering. It does not mention pagination or default limit, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds context about ordering and output usage, but does not provide additional detail for specific parameters beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool lists SEC filings from EDGAR in reverse chronological order and outputs accession numbers. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like sec_get_filing_index and sec_get_filing_document by focusing on listing vs. retrieval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description advises to provide a CIK and suggests using search or get_stock_profile to find it. It also explains that returned accession numbers are used for sec_get_filing_index and sec_get_filing_document, guiding the agent on workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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

All ko-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, and descriptions explicitly disambiguate similar pairs (e.g., get_congress_member vs get_congress_trades, get_crypto_holder vs get_crypto_holders). No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant pattern is get_<noun>, with list_<noun> for enumerations. Minor deviations exist: a bare 'search' tool and the 'sec_' prefix on SEC filing tools break the uniform verb_noun style, but the pattern remains predictable.

Tool Count4/5

At 24 tools, this is on the heavier side, but the server spans multiple financial data domains (SEC filings, stocks, insider trading, crypto, rates, economics), so each tool has a clear purpose. It is just below the 'too many' threshold.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete for financial data retrieval: SEC filing lifecycle is covered (list -> index -> document), institutional ownership is available from both stock and institution perspectives, and insider/congress/crypto/economic data are all present. No obvious gaps or dead ends.

Resources