Skip to main content
Glama

equibles

by io.github.daniel3303

Executive and Board Changes

GetExecutiveChanges
Read-only

Get a company's executive and director changes — CEO/CFO/officer/board appointments, resignations, terminations, and retirements — as disclosed in its 8-K Item 5.02 filings, newest filing first. Each change carries the person's name, the role text exactly as filed, a separate normalized role classification, the action, the effective date when stated, the verbatim disclosure, and the source filing (form + link). Changes are extracted from the filings' narrative text and verified before publication. Coverage is still back-filling: the output names the oldest covered filing date, and an empty answer distinguishes 'covered filings disclose no changes' from 'filings not yet processed'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionNoOptional action filter: Appointed, Resigned, Terminated, or Retired.
offsetNoNumber of matching changes to skip before returning rows (default 0).
tickerYesStock ticker symbol (e.g., AAPL, MSFT).
endDateNoOptional newest filed date, YYYY-MM-DD.
startDateNoOptional oldest filed date, YYYY-MM-DD.
maxResultsNoMaximum changes to return (default 25, cap 100).

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "description": "Number of matching changes to skip before returning rows (default 0).",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior; the description goes beyond them by disclosing extraction from narrative text, verification before publication, reverse-chronological ordering, and the back-filling coverage caveat with explicit empty-result semantics. This adds real behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: scope, source, return fields, ordering, extraction/verification behavior, and the coverage/empty-result caveat. The most important scoping information is front-loaded before the detailed behaviors.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description properly enumerates the returned fields: person name, raw and normalized role, action, effective date, verbatim disclosure, and filing source. Combined with full parameter documentation and safety annotations, nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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?

All six parameters are fully documented in the input schema, so the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. The prose adds useful output and coverage context but does not materially extend the semantics of ticker, date filters, action, offset, or maxResults.

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?

States a precise verb and resource: getting a company's executive and director changes from 8-K Item 5.02 filings. The event types are enumerated, and the source filing basis distinguishes it clearly from siblings such as GetExecutiveCompensation.

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 makes the use case clear: an agent needing executive/board appointment, resignation, termination, or retirement events from a company's 8-K filings. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the source-specific scope gives clear selection context.

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

All equibles 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that cross-reference related alternatives. A few near-duplicate names could cause misselection, notably SearchDocument versus SearchDocuments and GetCftcPositioning versus GetLatestCftcPositioning.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently follow a VerbNoun camelCase pattern: Get for retrievals, Search for discovery, List/Read for document access, and Add/Close/Remove/Update/Watch/Create/Delete for portfolio mutations. Despite the large count, there is no mixing of naming conventions or unpredictable verb styles.

Tool Count1/5

108 tools is an extreme surface area, far beyond the 3-15 well-scoped range and well past the 25+ threshold. Even for a broad financial data platform, this creates a heavy selection burden and substantial context overhead for agents.

Completeness4/5

The server covers an unusually wide domain: prices, fundamentals, SEC filings, options, insider activity, 13F holdings, short interest, macro data, funds, IPOs, and full portfolio lifecycle management. Notable gaps remain, such as a basic company profile/ticker-resolution tool, dividend history, and analyst estimates, so it is not a perfect 5.

Resources