gapup-mcp

attack_surface_monitor

Read-only

Surveillance surface d'attaque — Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (RISK). Returns a structured, audited deliverable. Answers: Which Internet-facing assets of combine a critical CVE, an exposed service, and no WAF — top findings to fix in 14 days? · What is the attack surface of : subdomains, open ports, SSL/TLS grades, and associated CVEs? · Give me a CISO-ready ASM report with blast radius estimate and SLA-driven remediation plan for . · What is the email phishing risk for ? Assess SPF/DMARC posture and recommend improvements. · During M&A due diligence, what are the top cyber exposures on 's Internet-facing infrastructure? Reference case: Velora Payments — 8 assets exposés · 2 critiques (CVE-2023-44487 HTTP/2 RapidReset, Admin panel ouvert) · . Inputs are validated server-side — send the documented case fields.

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.
`focus`	No
`domain`	Yes
`exclusions`	No
`scope_cidrs`	No
`include_email_surface`	Yes

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true are consistent with the description, which says it returns a report and mentions external domain analysis. The description adds context that the deliverable is 'audited' and mentions a 14-day fix suggestion, but does not cover rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is overly long, contains marketing fluff ('Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (RISK)'), and lacks a concise, front-loaded summary. It includes multiple example questions that could be streamlined.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters (2 required) and no output schema. The description gives examples of outputs but does not explain the structured deliverable's format, handling of async, or how parameters like 'focus' and 'exclusions' affect results. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 17% (only 'async' has a description). The tool description does not explain the meaning or usage of parameters like 'focus', 'exclusions', 'scope_cidrs', or 'include_email_surface' beyond implying email surface through an example. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it performs attack surface monitoring for a domain, returning a structured audit deliverable. It gives clear examples of what it can do (find critical CVEs, email phishing risk, etc.). However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'cve_security_lookup' or 'cyber_risk_auditor'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit example queries that serve as usage guidelines, such as 'Which Internet-facing assets of <domain> combine a critical CVE...' and 'During M&A due diligence...'. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives.

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?