EDGAR Filings
PYPI · EDGAR-FILINGS-MCP
SEC 10-K/10-Q symbols, segment revenue, BDC non-accrual, and Form 4 lines with citations.
Available components
Last scanned (17 hours ago)
Scores higher than 70% of PyPI servers
Category Finance and Payments
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically from public evidence about the published package, including repeated runs of it in an isolated sandbox, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Supply Chain Security49
- Malware scan not yet available for this package.Unverified
- No known CVEs affecting this package version or its production dependencies.Pass
- Runs setuptools.build_meta at install time, a recognised build step with no custom scripting around it. View diagnostics → Pass
- 6 of 60 dependencies flagged as unhealthy. View diagnostics → Partial
Provenance & Transparency97
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Cryptographically verified build provenance (signed, bound to Dxfory/edgar-mcp). View diagnostics → Pass
- Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 44 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability74
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 518 tokens (~129/item across 4 items; 4 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management70
- Stability observed for 21 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage67
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 0% of tool parameters carry a description.Fail
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 4 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 5 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Checks we ran (15)
- Known CVEs
- Install scripts
- Dependency health
- Source repository
- Provenance
- License
- Maintenance
- Security disclosure
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
Checks we could not complete (1)
These are gaps on our side, not findings about this package. We only credit what we can confirm, so a category made up entirely of them scores 0.
- Malware scan in Supply Chain SecurityMalware scan not yet available for this package.
Does not apply to this package (2)
- Endpoint SecurityScored on hosted endpoints only. A package has no live endpoint of its own for us to probe.
- Transport & ReachabilityScored on hosted endpoints only. A package has no live endpoint of its own for us to probe.
The score does not measure everything. What the score does not measure →
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 5 Nov 26 −14
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- 4 Nov 26 +15
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 3 Nov 26 −5
- Stability: pass → 0.63 functional
- 2 Nov 26 −15
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- 1 Nov 26 +15
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 30 Oct 26 −15
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- 29 Oct 26 +15
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 28 Oct 26 +1
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 5 Nov 2026 · Analysed pypi/edgar-filings-mcp@1.1.2
Provenance Verified
A signed build attestation was found and verified, binding this exact artifact to the source repository it claims to come from.
| Result | Verified |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | pypi |
| Reason | Verified |
| Discovered via | Registry attestation endpoint |
| Source repo | Dxfory/edgar-mcp |
| Certificate issuer | https://token.actions.githubusercontent.com |
| Certificate SAN | https://github.com/Dxfory/edgar-mcp/.github/workflows/publish.yml@refs/tags/v1.1.2 |
| Rekor log index | 2905482487 |
| Predicate type | PyPI publish attestation https://docs.pypi.org/attestations/publish/v1 |
| Subject digest | sha256:1c01f9a4b31d1c437df5b740237199b0a6fd8ae4defc3dbb8fe0325e5e69f774 |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Install scripts 1 script
| Hook | Tier | Command |
|---|---|---|
| build_backend | Known build tool | setuptools.build_meta |
Background: Why install scripts are a supply-chain risk →
Dependencies 60 packages
| Packages resolved | 60 |
|---|---|
| Stale | 5 |
| No linked repository | 1 |
| Tree resolution | Complete |
Background: SBOMs and build attestations, explained →
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
get_bdc_nonaccrual ~115
Non-accrual investments from a BDC 10-K or 10-Q, cited to the filing. Use this instead of guessing private-credit quality. ticker_or_cik must be an SEC BDC (814- filer) such as ARCC. Operating companies like NVDA raise. Non-accrual is the filer's tagged status, not Fitch PCDR and not PIK.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| accession | – | – | – |
| form | string | – | – |
| ticker_or_cik | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_form4 ~67
Recent Form 4 insider filings: who, role, activity, and transaction lines. limit: 1-20 filings, newest first. P/S are open_market true; A/M/F are false.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | integer | – | – |
| ticker_or_cik | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_segment_revenue ~109
Dimensioned XBRL revenue facts from a 10-K or 10-Q (product, business, geographic axes). This is filing data, not a consolidated income statement. ticker_or_cik: ticker like NVDA or a CIK. accession: optional filing accession; default is the latest of `form`. form: 10-K (default) or 10-Q.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| accession | – | – | – |
| form | string | – | – |
| ticker_or_cik | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_trading_symbols ~117
Every dei:TradingSymbol fact on a 10-K or 10-Q, plus the legacy entity_info ticker scalar. Use this when you need the common stock ticker versus preferred, notes, or dual-class symbols. ticker_or_cik: ticker like NVDA or a CIK. accession: optional filing accession; default is the latest of `form`. form: 10-K (default) or 10-Q.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| accession | – | – | – |
| form | string | – | – |
| ticker_or_cik | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the EDGAR Filings MCP server?
EDGAR Filings runs locally as a PyPI package, launched with uvx edgar-filings-mcp. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
pypi · edgar-filings-mcp
claude mcp add dxfory-edgar-mcp -- uvx edgar-filings-mcp
What is the EDGAR Filings MCP server?
EDGAR Filings is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.Dxfory/edgar-mcp. SEC 10-K/10-Q symbols, segment revenue, BDC non-accrual, and Form 4 lines with citations. This page covers its PyPI package (edgar-filings-mcp).
Is the EDGAR Filings MCP server safe to use?
EDGAR Filings scores 73 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We found no known CVEs affecting it as of 5 November 2026. Its build provenance is signed and verified. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the EDGAR Filings MCP server expose?
EDGAR Filings exposes 4 tools: get_trading_symbols, get_segment_revenue, get_bdc_nonaccrual, get_form4. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 408 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the EDGAR Filings MCP server still maintained?
EDGAR Filings is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 5 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.
What licence is the EDGAR Filings MCP server under?
EDGAR Filings declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.
What did VerifyMCP test on the EDGAR Filings MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 15 checks on EDGAR Filings, covering Known CVEs, Install scripts, Dependency health, Source repository and 11 more. One item could not be completed, a gap on our side rather than a finding about EDGAR Filings: Malware scan. Endpoint Security and Transport & Reachability do not apply to a PyPI package, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.