gapup-mcp

dual_use_export_risk_mapper

Read-onlyIdempotent

As a COO, quickly assess export compliance risks for components in your supply chain. This tool analyzes bills of materials (BOMs) against EU dual-use export control lists and ICAO/IMO restricted items data. Input a list of part numbers, descriptions, or HS codes to receive a risk assessment with actionable insights. Output includes risk levels, applicable regulations, and source references for audit trails.

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.
`bomItems`	Yes
`includeSources`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`results`	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, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context: it 'quickly assesses' risks, uses EU dual-use lists and ICAO/IMO data, and produces actionable insights with audit trails. This complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 with three sentences, front-loading the primary audience and purpose. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or filler.

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 complexity of export compliance, the description covers core functionality, inputs, and outputs. It references specific regulations (EU dual-use, ICAO/IMO) and provides output details. With an output schema presumably present, this is sufficient, though a mention of the async parameter's behavior would enhance completeness.

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 low (33%), but the description partially compensates by detailing that 'bomItems' is a list of items with part numbers, descriptions, or HS codes. However, 'includeSources' is not mentioned, and no further parameter guidance is given beyond the schema's limited descriptions.

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 assesses export compliance risks for supply chain components, with specific inputs (BOMs, part numbers, descriptions, HS codes) and outputs (risk levels, regulations, references). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_use_tech_diversion_monitor' which may share similar functionality.

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 sets a clear user persona (COO) and context (supply chain compliance), but lacks guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives. Given siblings exist, explicit exclusions or comparison would improve this dimension.

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?