Skip to main content
Glama

gapup-mcp

by io.gapup.mcp

agoa_eba_intelligence

Read-only

Intelligence préférentielle AGOA (US→Africa) et EBA/GSP (EU→Africa). Vérifie l'éligibilité d'un pays africain aux programmes tarifaires préférentiels, l'éligibilité d'un produit par code HS, identifie les meilleures opportunités d'export Afrique→US/EU, et fournit les règles de conformité (rules of origin, valeur ajoutée, docs). Différenciateur Africa diaspora : 39 pays AGOA + 47 LDCs EBA encodés. Sources : AGOA.info · EU EBA · EU GSP+ · WTO Tariff · UN Comtrade.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeYesMode d'analyse : 'country_eligibility' (statut AGOA/EBA/GSP d'un pays africain) | 'product_eligibility' (éligibilité d'un produit par code HS) | 'trade_opportunity' (top opportunités export Afrique→US/EU) | 'compliance_check' (rules of origin, seuils valeur ajoutée, documentation)
asyncNoIf 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_codeNoCode HS (Harmonized System) 6+ chiffres (requis pour product_eligibility). Exemple : '620342' = pantalons coton homme, '090111' = café arabica non torréfié, '060310' = fleurs fraîches.
country_isoNoCode ISO 2-lettres du pays africain (requis pour country_eligibility). Exemples : KE=Kenya, NG=Nigeria, ZA=Afrique du Sud, ET=Éthiopie, LS=Lesotho, GH=Ghana.
destinationNoMarché de destination pour trade_opportunity : 'US', 'EU', ou 'both' (défaut). Ignoré pour les autres modes.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds context about the tool's coverage (countries, sources) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like synchronous/asynchronous behavior or response format. It does not contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and capabilities. It is front-loaded with the core function. While it includes some redundancy with the parameter descriptions, it remains concise for a tool with multiple modes.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 4 modes), the description does not explain the output format or what the tool returns. Since there is no output schema, this is a significant gap. It also lacks information on error handling or response behavior. The description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's results.

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 parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description provides an overview but adds minimal additional meaning beyond listing the modes. The schema already explains mode options, hs_code examples, etc., so the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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: checking eligibility for AGOA/EBA/GSP programs, product eligibility by HS code, identifying trade opportunities, and providing compliance rules. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the specific scope of 39 AGOA countries and 47 LDC EBA countries, making it unique.

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 through its list of modes (country_eligibility, product_eligibility, etc.), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus related siblings like africa_trade_preference_arbitrage or africa_trade_preference_optimizer. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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

All gapup-mcp 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

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