gapup-mcp

africa_trade_barrier_breaker

Read-onlyIdempotent

As a COO, analyze non-tariff trade barriers (NTBs) across African trade corridors using WITS and UNCTAD STAT data. Input origin/destination countries and product HS codes to receive barrier mapping with severity scores and actionable mitigation strategies. Returns structured risk assessment, regulatory compliance gaps, and supply chain optimization recommendations. Pass async:true to avoid timeout.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`async`	No	If true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.
`hs_code`	No	6-digit Harmonized System product code
`origin_country`	Yes	ISO 3-letter country code for export origin
`destination_country`	Yes	ISO 3-letter country code for import destination
`include_regulatory_details`	No	Whether to include detailed regulatory text in output

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`sources`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`barrier_summary`	Yes
`trade_flow_impact`	No
`regulatory_details`	No
`mitigation_strategies`	Yes

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning that passing async:true avoids timeout and describing the return format (structured risk assessment, etc.). This supplements the annotations without contradiction.

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 four sentences, front-loading the core function, then detailing inputs and outputs. It is concise with no wasted words, and the async instruction is placed at the end for clarity.

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?

Given complexity, the description covers key aspects: data sources, inputs, outputs, and async behavior. An output schema exists (though not shown), so the description doesn't need to detail returns. Slightly lacking in explaining severity scoring or mitigation strategy format, but overall sufficient.

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 5 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond highlighting origin/destination countries and HS codes. The async parameter usage note is helpful but not critical. Baseline 3 applies as schema carries the load.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing non-tariff trade barriers across African trade corridors using specific data sources. It mentions the role (COO), inputs (origin/destination countries, HS codes), and outputs (barrier mapping with severity scores, mitigation strategies). This differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on other Africa-related trade analyses.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage by a COO for analyzing NTBs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools like africa_trade_finance_esg_rater or africa_trade_preference_arbitrage.

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

All gapup-mcp tools Inspect

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

C2.5/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

With 271 tools, many have overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple competitor intel tools, multiple financial modelers, multiple ESG auditors). Detailed descriptions help slightly, but the sheer volume creates confusion. Agents would struggle to select the right tool among many similar options.

Naming Consistency1/5

Tool names are wildly inconsistent: mix of English and French, snake_case and short phrases, some very generic (process, run, execute equivalents). No discernible naming convention (e.g., abm_architect vs. boundary_control vs. bp_narratif). This makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

271 tools is far beyond typical well-scoped servers (3-15). This indicates an unfocused, over-bloated tool surface. Even for a general business intelligence server, this number is excessive and violates the principle of each tool earning its place.

Completeness2/5

Despite the large count, coverage feels scattered. Some domains (e.g., content, competitive intel) have many tools, while others (e.g., supply chain, HR) have gaps. The set lacks a coherent scope; it seems like a dump of many separate tool collections rather than a complete, curated surface.

Resources

Need Help?