gapup-mcp

content_provenance

Read-only

Audit the full data provenance of a content entity — all its enrichment tags with their extraction source, corroboration score, source list and last verification date, plus an entity-level freshness summary. Use this tool before citing or relying on enriched content data in a high-stakes context (ad targeting, editorial, analysis). Inputs: entity_id (required) and entity_type (franchise or work).

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.
`entity_id`	Yes	Entity id from content_catalog (e.g. 'video-game-elden-ring')
`entity_type`	No	Whether the id is a franchise or a work (default: franchise)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lineage`	Yes	Full tag lineage from v_data_lineage — one entry per tag.
`entity_id`	Yes
`entity_type`	Yes
`freshness_summary`	Yes	Entity-level freshness & trust summary from v_entity_freshness.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool is safe and result variability is expected. The description adds detail on the output contents (tags, scores, freshness), but does not discuss authorization needs, rate limits, or other behavioral aspects beyond annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and use case, then lists inputs. It is reasonably efficient, though the 'Inputs:' section repeats schema information slightly, adding minor redundancy.

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 and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose, use case, and key output elements. It is complete for the context of a provenance audit tool.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (async, entity_id, entity_type) with descriptions. The description redundantly lists inputs but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 audits the full data provenance of a content entity, listing specific elements like enrichment tags, extraction source, corroboration score, and freshness summary. This specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling content tools by focusing on provenance rather than discovery or 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?

The description explicitly advises using the tool before citing or relying on enriched content in high-stakes contexts (ad targeting, editorial, analysis). This provides clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not name specific alternatives or when not to use.

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?