gapup-mcp

bond_covenant_esg_compliance_checker

Read-onlyIdempotent

As a CFO, quickly assess whether your bond covenants meet ESG compliance standards set by BIS and ECB. This tool analyzes covenant text against regulatory benchmarks, identifying potential ESG-related risks in carbon emissions, governance practices, and social impact clauses. Input bond covenant details and receive structured compliance insights with source references. Ideal for pre-issuance due diligence or ongoing monitoring of existing bond portfolios.

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.
`couponType`	No	Type of bond coupon
`covenantText`	Yes	Full text of the bond covenant to analyze
`issuerSector`	No	Industry sector of the bond issuer (e.g., energy, finance)
`jurisdiction`	No	Legal jurisdiction governing the bond (e.g., EU, US)
`maturityDate`	No	Maturity date of the bond

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`sources`	No
`warnings`	No
`riskAreas`	No
`complianceScore`	No
`recommendations`	No

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying that the output includes 'structured compliance insights with source references,' providing additional clarity on what the agent can expect beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: context (CFO role), mechanism (analyzes against benchmarks), and use cases (pre-issuance/monitoring). It is concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and output nature. Given that the input schema and output schema exist, the description provides sufficient high-level context. It omits details on specific output fields, but the output schema handles that, so completeness is solid.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 6 parameters adequately. The description does not add significant extra meaning about the parameters beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: to assess bond covenant compliance against BIS and ECB ESG standards. It specifies the verb 'assess' and the resource 'bond covenant text' with regulatory benchmarks. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like bond_covenant_monitor or esg_audit_multi, preventing a score of 5.

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 provides usage context, stating it is 'Ideal for pre-issuance due diligence or ongoing monitoring.' This gives general guidance but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions or comparisons to alternative tools, earning a score of 3.

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?