gapup-mcp

competitor_intel

Read-onlyIdempotent

LLM-narrated competitive-intelligence BRIEFING — for human consumption (board meeting, pitch prep). Pair tool: competitive_deep_dive for raw structured multi-source data (agent-shaped JSON). Returns: recent competitor moves with severity (critical/high/medium/low), prioritised signals, pricing-radar comparison, 3-6 quantified recommendations (impact in € or %, 7/30/90/180-day horizons), and an 8-12 slide presenter script. Use when the buyer wants a narrative briefing or a deck. Inputs: your company (name + one-paragraph pitch) + 1-10 competitors. Delivered by Manue, AI CMO of the Gapup portfolio.

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	Optional — what the buyer wants to track first (e.g. pricing moves, hiring patterns)
`competitors`	Yes	1-10 competitors to analyze
`selfCompany`	Yes	Your company info

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kpis`	No	3-5 headline KPI bubbles
`sources`	No	Cited sources
`pricingRadar`	No	Pricing comparison across competitors
`competitorMoves`	Yes	Recent moves per competitor with severity rating
`presenterScript`	Yes	8-12 slide board presenter script
`recommendations`	Yes	3-6 actionable strategic recommendations
`executiveSummary`	Yes	Board-ready prose summary (120-400 chars)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds output structure (severity, signals, recommendations, script) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Description is informative and front-loaded with purpose and output, though slightly lengthy. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with 4 params, nested objects, and output schema, the description covers inputs, output format, use cases, and even persona. Return values are explained with sufficient detail given the output schema exists.

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 100% with descriptions for all parameters. Description repeats input structure (company + competitors) and mentions async/focus, but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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?

Clearly states the tool produces an LLM-narrated competitive intelligence briefing for human consumption, distinguishing it from the sibling 'competitive_deep_dive' which provides raw structured data. Verb 'briefing' and resource 'competitive intelligence' are specific.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'Use when the buyer wants a narrative briefing or a deck' and pairs with 'competitive_deep_dive' for raw data, providing clear when-to-use and alternative.

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?