gapup-mcp

competitor_moves

Read-only

Mouvements concurrents — Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CMO). Returns a structured, audited deliverable. Answers: What have my named competitors done recently — releases, pricing changes, hires, funding? · Which competitor signals are the most urgent right now and what should I do about them? Reference case: Notion — moves de ClickUp, Asana, Coda. 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
`competitors`	Yes
`selfCompany`	Yes

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true (external dependencies). The description adds 'Returns a structured, audited deliverable' and 'Inputs are validated server-side', but omits details like potential rate limits or data freshness. With good annotations, the description adds moderate behavioral context.

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 moderately concise but includes a French intro and a reference case that adds length without critical guidance. The core information is front-loaded (purpose and answers) but could be tighter.

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?

Given the low schema coverage, absence of output schema, and nested object parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the expected structure of the deliverable, required subfields for selfCompany/competitors, or how to use focus. The tool is complex enough that more context is needed.

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 coverage is only 25% (only async described). The description mentions 'named competitors' but does not explain selfCompany, competitors, or focus parameters. It refers to 'send the documented case fields' without specifying them. The description 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 the tool outputs a structured deliverable about competitor moves (releases, pricing, hires, funding) and urgent signals. The verb 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CMO)' is somewhat opaque but the core purpose is identifiable. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like competitor_intel or competitive_deep_dive, but the focus on 'moves' provides some distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., competitor_intel, competitor_profiles). No when-not or exclusion criteria. The reference case (Notion vs. ClickUp, Asana, Coda) illustrates usage but does not provide decision rules.

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?