gapup-mcp

bond_covenant_monitor

Read-onlyIdempotent

As a CFO, monitor bond covenant compliance by analyzing leverage ratios (debt-to-equity, debt-to-EBITDA) and interest coverage ratios using real-time financial data. Input a company's ticker symbol and optional covenant thresholds to receive compliance status, key financial metrics, and SEC filing references. Ideal for proactive debt management and regulatory compliance tracking. Keywords: bond covenants, leverage ratio, interest coverage, debt compliance, SEC filings, financial health.

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.
`ticker`	Yes	Company ticker symbol (e.g., 'AAPL')
`covenantThresholds`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`sources`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`debtToEquity`	No
`leverageRatio`	No
`lastFilingDate`	No
`complianceStatus`	Yes
`interestCoverage`	No
`nextFilingDeadline`	No

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about using real-time data and SEC references but does not contradict annotations. It provides some behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is three sentences plus a keyword list. It is moderately concise but contains marketing fluff ('As a CFO', 'Ideal for proactive debt management') that could be trimmed without losing information.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description appropriately notes the returned items (compliance status, metrics, SEC refs). It covers input, output, and use case, leaving minimal gaps for its complexity level.

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?

Schema coverage is high (67% with descriptions for all parameters and nested property descriptions). The description mentions 'debt-to-EBITDA' which is not a parameter, adding slight confusion. It does not significantly add meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 monitors bond covenant compliance using leverage and interest coverage ratios. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'bond_covenant_esg_compliance_checker', which could cause confusion.

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 mentions input requirements (ticker, optional thresholds) and use case (debt management, compliance tracking), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternatives like the ESG-focused sibling.

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?