IMERGEA MCP for SME and mid-market M&A valuation, readiness and advisory tools.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct domain: transaction readiness assessment, business valuation, and server capabilities. There is no ambiguity or overlap among the three.
Names follow a verb_noun pattern in 'assess_transaction_readiness' but 'business_valuation' is noun_noun and 'imergea_get_capabilities' includes a server prefix. The pattern is mixed but still readable.
With only 3 tools, the server feels minimally scoped. While it covers core M&A advisory tasks, the count is on the low end for a full-fledged service.
The server provides valuation and readiness assessment, which are central to M&A advisory. The capabilities tool is a bonus. Minor gaps like missing deal comparison or report generation exist, but the core is covered.
assess_transaction_readinessIMERGEA Transaction ReadinessAAssess how ready an SME or mid-market company is for buyer or investor scrutiny using the IMERGEA 7-dimension Sell-Ready / SME Friction Map. Returns a 0-100 readiness score, verdict, friction by dimension, and a prioritised action plan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| legal | Yes | Legal, tax, IP, employment and regulatory readiness: 1=material gaps/exposure; 3=current with manageable exposure; 5=recently audited and transfer-ready. | |
| strategy | Yes | Strategic positioning and growth visibility: 1=no documented plan; 3=basic growth narrative; 5=data-backed growth story with clear buyer synergy logic. | |
| contracts | Yes | Customer/supplier contracts and revenue visibility: 1=informal/high concentration; 3=main contracts signed; 5=fully documented and diversified. | |
| financials | Yes | Financial clarity and reporting: 1=no management reporting; 3=normalized P&L/basic KPIs; 5=audit-ready accounts, EBITDA bridge and clear recurring revenue. | |
| governance | Yes | Corporate structure and governance readiness: 1=unclear/informal; 3=basic documents in place; 5=fully rationalized, executed and data-room ready. | |
| management | Yes | Management depth and founder dependency: 1=founder-dependent; 3=second line exists but founder remains central; 5=team can operate without founder. | |
| operations | Yes | Operational processes, systems and scalability: 1=informal/undocumented; 3=main processes documented; 5=integrated, automated, compliant and transferable. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns a score, verdict, friction by dimension, and action plan, which is useful but not extensive. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., data freshness, cost) are disclosed.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the outputs. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.
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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description provides a solid overview of inputs and outputs. It names the framework and the return components (score, verdict, friction, action plan). A minor gap is the lack of an explicit statement about the read-only nature, but annotations cover 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each of the 7 parameters (1-5 integer scales) already explained. The tool description adds no new information about the parameters beyond mentioning the '7-dimension' framework. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states the tool's purpose: 'Assess how ready an SME or mid-market company is for buyer or investor scrutiny using the IMERGEA 7-dimension Sell-Ready / SME Friction Map.' It specifies the verb (assess), resource (transaction readiness), and deliverables (score, verdict, friction, action plan). The sibling tools 'business_valuation' and 'imergea_get_capabilities' are distinct, so no confusion.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to avoid, or how sibling tools like 'business_valuation' differ. An agent would need to infer usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
business_valuationIMERGEA Business ValuationAEstimate an SME or mid-market company value using the IMERGEA six-method valuation methodology: EBITDA multiple, revenue multiple, DCF, asset-based NAV, public-market comparables discounted for private-company status, and liquidation floor. Also returns an aggregated listed-peer KPI benchmark when available. Monetary inputs are full currency units by default; set amount_unit to millions to use values such as 5 for 5 million.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ebitda | Yes | ||
| revenue | Yes | ||
| currency | No | ISO-style three-letter currency label. No FX conversion is performed. | EUR |
| industry | Yes | ||
| employees | No | ||
| equipment | No | ||
| geography | Yes | ||
| inventory | No | ||
| net_income | Yes | ||
| amount_unit | No | units | |
| real_estate | No | ||
| total_assets | No | ||
| free_cash_flow | Yes | ||
| cash_equivalents | No | ||
| gross_margin_pct | No | ||
| intangible_assets | No | ||
| total_liabilities | Yes | ||
| accounts_receivable | No | ||
| expected_growth_pct | No | ||
| terminal_growth_pct | No | ||
| historical_growth_pct | No | ||
| intellectual_property | No | none | |
| customer_retention_pct | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds detail about the six methods and the KPI benchmark, which is helpful but doesn't reveal potential side effects or caveats (e.g., no FX conversion is noted, but that is already in the schema). The behavioral traits match annotations.
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 three sentences and front-loads the purpose and methodology. Every sentence provides value: the first explains the core valuation, the second mentions the additional KPI benchmark output, and the third clarifies monetary input units. No waste, but could be slightly more concise by combining the last two sentences.
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 complexity (23 parameters, 6 valuation methods) and the lack of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the valuation methodology, the aggregated benchmark output, and input unit handling. However, it doesn't describe what the return value looks like or how to interpret the results, which would be helpful given no output schema.
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 description coverage is very low (4%), so the description must compensate. It explains that monetary inputs are in full currency units by default, and setting amount_unit to 'millions' allows using values like 5 for 5 million. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema, helping the agent choose correct input formats.
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 uses a specific verb ('Estimate') and a clear resource ('SME or mid-market company value'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the IMERGEA six-method methodology. The siblings are assess_transaction_readiness and imergea_get_capabilities, so this tool's purpose is clearly unique.
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 description implies use when a multi-method business valuation is needed, but it does not give any guidance on when to avoid this tool or when to use the siblings instead. For example, it doesn't say whether assess_transaction_readiness is a prerequisite or an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
imergea_get_capabilitiesIMERGEA MCP CapabilitiesAReturns the current status and exposed scope of the official IMERGEA M&A MCP server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide strong transparency: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying it returns 'status and exposed scope', which goes beyond annotations to clarify what the tool exposes. No contradictions found. A 4 is appropriate because annotations carry the burden, and the description adds useful context.
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 sentence that concisely states the tool's purpose without any fluff. Every word is necessary, and it is front-loaded with the key action. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose (return status/scope), the description is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly. It does not need to explain return values since the purpose 'returns... status and scope' is clear. A 4 is suitable as it covers the essential information.
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% with 0 parameters, so the schema fully defines the input. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none. A baseline of 4 for 0 params is appropriate, as the description is complete for what it is.
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 states the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'current status and exposed scope of the official IMERGEA M&A MCP server', which conveys the tool's purpose. It distinguishes this from sibling tools (assess_transaction_readiness, business_valuation) by focusing on server capabilities rather than domain-specific assessments. However, it could be more specific about what 'status' and 'scope' include.
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 context indicates 0 parameters and 0 required parameters, so usage is straightforward: just call the tool. The description implies this is for discovering the server's capabilities, which is a natural first step before using sibling tools. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are provided, but given the simplicity, the implied usage is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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!
