gapup-mcp

content_catalog

Read-only

Browse the Gapup gold-standard content catalogue — video games, films, TV series and music. Returns franchises with their works (title, release year). When to use this tool: an agent needs structured, audited metadata for a cultural franchise, wants to resolve a title to a canonical entity, or browses a domain's catalogue before requesting enrichment. Inputs: a content domain and an optional case-insensitive name filter. Each franchise id can be passed to content_enrichment for its fine-grained tag profile.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Optional case-insensitive substring filter on franchise name
`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.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of franchises to return (default 20)
`domain`	Yes	Content domain to browse

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes
`domain`	Yes
`franchises`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral details: returns franchise works with title and release year, supports async polling via async parameter, and name filter is case-insensitive. No contradictions with 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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded. It opens with the core purpose, followed by return info, usage guidelines, inputs, and relationship to another tool. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return structure (franchises with works, title, release year) and links to content_enrichment. It provides complete guidance for a browsing tool, including usage context and input requirements.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates inputs ('a content domain and an optional case-insensitive name filter') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Browse the Gapup gold-standard content catalogue — video games, films, TV series and music. Returns franchises with their works (title, release year).' This provides a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like content_enrichment.

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?

Explicit 'When to use this tool' section: 'an agent needs structured, audited metadata for a cultural franchise, wants to resolve a title to a canonical entity, or browses a domain's catalogue before requesting enrichment.' This gives clear context but doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives beyond content_enrichment.

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?