gapup-mcp

dora_metrics_deep_dive

Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyzes DORA metrics (Deployment Frequency, Mean Time to Recovery, Change Failure Rate) with deep correlation to code review patterns. Designed for CTOs to identify bottlenecks in software delivery pipelines. Inputs include GitHub repository identifiers and optional time ranges. Outputs structured metrics with trend analysis and code review depth insights.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes	GitHub repository in format 'owner/repo'
`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.
`since`	No	Start date for analysis (ISO 8601)
`until`	No	End date for analysis (ISO 8601)
`branch`	No	Branch name to analyze (default: main)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`metrics`	No
`sources`	No
`warnings`	No

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, so safety is assured. The description adds value by stating outputs include structured metrics with trend analysis and code review depth insights, providing behavioral context 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences with clear structure: function, audience/purpose, inputs/outputs. Front-loaded with key information. No unnecessary words.

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 tool has 5 parameters and an output schema exists, the description is adequate. It covers core purpose, audience, input types, and output nature. Minor missing details on how code review correlation works are compensated by schema and annotations.

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% (all parameters described). The description only summarizes inputs as 'GitHub repository identifiers and optional time ranges', which does not add significant meaning beyond schema definitions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 analyzes DORA metrics (Deployment Frequency, Mean Time to Recovery, Change Failure Rate) with correlation to code review patterns. It specifies the verb 'analyzes' and the resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mttr_breakdown_analyzer' or 'code_review_depth_optimizer'.

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 implies usage for CTOs identifying bottlenecks in software delivery pipelines, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, or conditions where it should not be used.

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?