sec-intelligence-mcp
The server is an SEC EDGAR filing intelligence MCP server (the provided schema only lists a ping health check, but the README describes these capabilities):
ping– health check returningpong.Fetch and ingest SEC filings (e.g., 10-K, 8-K) by ticker: download, parse into sections, chunk, embed, and store in Qdrant.
Search filings semantically or with hybrid keyword/semantic search (BM25 + reranker optional), returning citations to company, section, and filing.
Answer questions strictly from retrieved filing text with citations, and refuse to guess if the answer is not in the filing.
Generate structured filing summaries covering business, financials, risks, and outlook.
Compare 2–4 companies using citations from their filings.
Detect financial anomalies by comparing MD&A and Risk Factors across consecutive fiscal years.
Summarize earnings releases (8-K Exhibit 99.1) with headline metrics, quotes, guidance, and tone.
Run a RAGAS-based evaluation pipeline to measure retrieval and answer quality.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@sec-intelligence-mcpFind the latest 10-K filing for Tesla and summarize its risk factors"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
sec-intelligence-mcp
MCP server for SEC EDGAR filing intelligence, fetching, chunking/embedding, retrieval, and evaluation, exposed as tools an MCP client (e.g. Claude Desktop) can call.
Setup
Install uv.
Install dependencies:
uv syncCopy
.env.exampleto.envand fill in the keys (see below).Start Qdrant locally:
docker compose up -d qdrantRun the server directly:
uv run python src/server.pyOr with the MCP Inspector (dev UI, requires Node.js):
uv run mcp dev src/server.py
Related MCP server: SEC EDGAR MCP
Running via Docker
docker compose up -d builds the server image and starts it alongside Qdrant. The app
service reads secrets from your local .env via env_file, and QDRANT_URL is overridden
to http://qdrant:6333 (the in-network service name) since localhost inside the container
would not reach the qdrant container. config.py still fails fast if .env is missing
required keys.
Getting API keys (all free)
Variable | Where to get it |
| https://aistudio.google.com/apikey — free tier, sign in with Google account |
|
|
| Only needed for a hosted Qdrant Cloud instance; leave blank for local |
| https://cloud.langfuse.com — free tier, create a project, copy keys from Settings → API Keys |
| Optional. Any string of the form |
| Optional. Defaults to |
| Optional. Defaults to |
src/config.py fails fast at import time (raises RuntimeError) if any required key is missing.
Connecting Claude Desktop
Add this to your claude_desktop_config.json (on Windows:
%APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json):
{
"mcpServers": {
"sec-intelligence-mcp": {
"command": "uv",
"args": [
"--directory",
"C:\\ABSOLUTE\\PATH\\TO\\sec-intelligence-mcp",
"run",
"python",
"src/server.py"
]
}
}
}Restart Claude Desktop, open the tools list, and confirm sec-intelligence-mcp appears with a
ping tool that returns "pong".
Testing locally
uv run python -c "import mcp" # SDK installed correctly
uv run python scripts/test_server_stdio.py # server responds over stdio (ping -> pong)
docker compose up -d qdrant
uv run python scripts/test_qdrant.py # Qdrant round-trip works
# EDGAR data layer (each hits the real EDGAR API)
uv run python scripts/test_edgar_lookup.py # ticker -> CIK, DuckDB-cached
uv run python scripts/test_edgar_filings.py # recent 10-K filings for a ticker
uv run python scripts/test_edgar_parser.py # download + clean a real filing
uv run python scripts/test_edgar_sections.py # section detection + metadata
# Embedding & retrieval pipeline (real model + real Qdrant)
uv run python scripts/test_chunker.py # section/paragraph chunking
uv run python scripts/test_encoder.py # E5 embedding shape/latency
uv run python scripts/test_ingest.py # chunk -> embed -> upsert to Qdrant
uv run python scripts/test_search.py # semantic search with citations
# MCP tools (real pipeline + real Gemini calls)
uv run python scripts/test_tool_ingest_company_filings.py
uv run python scripts/test_tool_search_filings.py
uv run python scripts/test_tool_analyze_filing.py
uv run python scripts/test_tool_get_filing_summary.pyProject structure
src/
├── server.py # MCP server entrypoint
├── tools/ # One file per MCP tool
├── edgar/ # SEC EDGAR fetching + parsing
├── embeddings/ # Chunking + embedding pipeline
├── retrieval/ # Qdrant client + search
├── evaluation/ # RAGAS eval pipeline
└── config.py # Env var loading (fail-fast)
tests/ # Unit/integration tests
prompts/ # Prompt templates (.txt)
data/ # Gitignored local cache (DuckDB, filing PDFs, Qdrant storage)
eval/ # Test questions + ground truth answers
scripts/ # One-off dev/test scriptsProgress so far
Epic 1 — Foundation. Got the basic plumbing working: a local Python project set up with
uv, a minimal MCP server that Claude Desktop can actually connect to and call, environment
config that fails with a clear error if a required key is missing, and Qdrant (the search
database) running locally via Docker.
Epic 2 — Fetching filings from SEC. Given a stock ticker like "NVDA", the system now looks up the company, finds its annual reports (10-Ks), downloads them, strips out all the HTML formatting down to clean text, and splits that text into its standard labeled sections (Item 1 Business, Item 1A Risk Factors, Item 7 MD&A, etc.) so we always know which part of the filing any piece of text came from.
Epic 3 — Making it searchable by meaning. Each filing gets cut into small overlapping chunks, and each chunk is converted into a vector (a list of numbers capturing its meaning) using a free, local AI model — no paid API needed. Those vectors go into Qdrant, so a question like "data center revenue growth" finds the right paragraph even if it doesn't use those exact words, and every result comes back with a citation (company, section, filing) so we always know exactly where an answer came from.
Epic 4 — Tools Claude can actually call. Wired everything into four MCP tools: one to fetch and index a company's filings, one for semantic search, one that answers a specific question with citations (using a free Gemini model, instructed to only use the retrieved filing text — never general knowledge), and one that generates a structured summary (business overview, financials, risks, outlook) of an entire filing.
Epic 5 — Making answers more trustworthy. Tightened the answer-generation prompt so the model explicitly refuses to guess when a filing doesn't contain the answer, and cites every claim back to its exact section — this genuinely works, verified live (asking about NVIDIA's non-existent "Mars operations" correctly returns "not present in the filing" instead of an invented answer). Also implemented a second search method (BM25 exact-keyword matching, blended with the existing semantic search) and a re-ranking step, both tested against real data rather than assumed to work.
Honest result: the two acceptance benchmarks weren't met as originally written, and the
investigation into why turned out to be the more useful finding. Quadrupling the test
corpus made both hybrid retrieval and re-ranking perform worse on the strict pass/fail
metric — which disproved an initial "not enough data" theory rather than confirming it. The
real explanation: the benchmark's accounting-term queries are formulaic line items where
keyword search and semantic search already agree, leaving no ambiguity for hybrid search to
resolve — its actual value showed up on a genuinely ambiguous query where semantic search
drifted toward the wrong (but related) passage. Re-ranking's shortfall turned out to be a
model-fit issue (the specified cross-encoder was trained on web search, not SEC filings), not
something more data would fix. Hybrid search is used by default since it never hurt in
testing; re-ranking is implemented but kept opt-in (use_reranker) since it occasionally made
results worse with this specific model.
Epic 6 — Advanced MCP Tools v2. Added three tools that combine multiple filings or companies into higher-level analysis: compare_companies grounds a side-by-side comparison of 2-4 companies in their actual filing text with citations; detect_financial_anomalies compares a company's MD&A and Risk Factors sections across consecutive fiscal years and flags notable changes (new risks, unexplained financial swings, tone shifts); get_earnings_summary locates a company's quarterly earnings press release (the 8-K Exhibit 99.1) and extracts headline metrics, management quotes, guidance, and tone. All three were verified against real data: NVIDIA's actual FY2023→FY2024 datacenter revenue surge (126% growth) was correctly flagged as a high-severity anomaly, and Apple's real Q2 2024 earnings release yielded 4 grounded management statements from Tim Cook and Luca Maestri.
Epic 7 — Evaluation Pipeline. Built an automated RAG-quality eval harness so quality is measured before every release, not assumed. 50 real question-answer pairs across 5 companies (AAPL, NVDA, MSFT, AMZN, GOOGL) and 5 question types, with ground truth extracted from actual 10-K filings and independently verified against source text — not LLM-invented. Scored with RAGAS (faithfulness, answer correctness, context recall), wired to this project's own Gemini key rather than RAGAS's OpenAI default. Building the eval dataset surfaced and fixed two real production bugs: section-detection was silently missing real headings on filers that use a non-breaking space (Amazon, NVIDIA) or repeat "Item N" as a running header throughout a section (Microsoft), corrupting section boundaries for any company beyond the original three tested now fixed and regression-tested. Separately, the core Gemini call had no retry/backoff, so any tool could crash outright on a routine rate limit now retries with exponential backoff.
Epic 8 — Observability. Added production observability to analyze_filing using LangFuse Cloud, with the Python SDK and required credentials documented in .env.example. Instrumented the full analysis flow with separate embedding, retrieval, and LLM generation spans capturing queries, filters, retrieved chunks, scores, prompts, responses, and token usage. Added background RAGAS faithfulness scoring so evaluation does not block the user response, with scores attached to the originating LangFuse trace. Added explicit latency monitoring for embedding, retrieval, LLM calls, and total tool execution. Verified the implementation with real NVDA queries, including a 1.00 faithfulness score and all expected traces/spans appearing in the LangFuse dashboard. Three real calls averaged ~5.04s, below the 8s target; one 8.82s outlier was investigated through LangFuse and traced to a 5.27s query-embedding spike, likely caused by CPU contention on the development machine rather than a reproduced code-level issue.
Epic 9 — Testing & CI/CD. Set up a real GitHub Actions pipeline so quality gates run automatically on every push and PR, not just when someone remembers to run tests manually. Unit test coverage for core modules (edgar/lookup.py, embeddings/chunker.py, retrieval/search.py, config.py) was already in place from writing tests alongside each epic as it was built — 117 tests total, all mocked, zero real network calls, running in under a minute. Added a real end-to-end integration test against Apple's actual FY2023 10-K (ingest → search → analyze → verify citation), marked to run manually before release rather than on every push since it needs live Qdrant and Gemini and takes several minutes.
The CI pipeline itself has four jobs: lint, test, a Docker build check, and an eval-gate that runs a subset of the real Epic 7 eval questions against live-ingested data on every PR to main, failing the build if faithfulness drops below 0.75. Getting this actually working end-to-end (not just written) surfaced two real bugs worth noting: a PYTHONPATH gap that broke an inline ingestion step, and a fiscal-year mismatch where the CI job was ingesting the wrong year's filing relative to what the eval questions expected — both caught and fixed by watching real CI runs fail, not by inspection alone. The eval-gate is intentionally scoped to a handful of questions rather than the full 50, since each one costs several real Gemini API calls and the free tier's daily quota is a real, previously-hit constraint.
Available Tools
1 toolpingA
Health-check tool. Returns 'pong' if the server is reachable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the expected success response ('pong') and the condition (server reachable). However, it does not mention behavior on failure (e.g., error, timeout). With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and this is a minor gap for a health-check tool.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and expected output without any redundant words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no nested objects, and an output schema), the description is complete. It explains the core behavior without needing to detail return formats, as the output schema already provides that.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. No parameter descriptions are needed; the baseline of 4 applies.
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 clearly identifies the tool as a health-check that returns 'pong' when the server is reachable. The verb 'health-check' and resource 'server' are specific and unambiguous.
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 purpose implies when to use it (to verify server availability), but there is no explicit guidance on when it should or should not be used. No alternatives exist among siblings, so the lack of contrast is acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
1 tool update
v0.1.0- First observed
ping
TDQS
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between overlapping purposes. The single 'ping' tool is unambiguous.
A single tool named 'ping' follows a straightforward and predictable pattern. There are no conflicting conventions to assess.
The server name suggests a security intelligence domain, but only a trivial health-check tool is provided. This is an extreme mismatch between stated purpose and tool surface.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for a security intelligence server, offering only a ping endpoint with no actual intelligence-gathering, analysis, or query capabilities.
Maintenance
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
MCP server for VC pitch-deck scoring, thesis-fit matching, and deal-flow management.
MCP server providing access to the Scorecard API to evaluate and optimize LLM systems.
MCP server for building and testing AI agents with multi-model experimentation and insights.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceMCP server providing read-only access to SEC EDGAR filings, allowing LLMs to look up companies, search filings, and retrieve securities offering data.31MIT
- AlicenseCqualityBmaintenanceMCP server for accessing SEC EDGAR filings. Connects AI assistants to company filings, financial statements, and insider trading data with exact numeric precision.21355AGPL 3.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for SEC EDGAR that provides real-time access to filings, financial statements, and full-text search across all EDGAR documents.Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server for analyzing SEC filings (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K) with industry-aware financial extraction and BERT-based NLP.1MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/jahanv01/sec-intelligence-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server