gapup-mcp

economic_indicator

Read-only

Return a precise macroeconomic indicator for a country — the exact figure for a market-sizing, finance or strategy workflow. Indicators: gdp_usd, gdp_per_capita, gdp_growth, inflation, unemployment, population. Source: World Bank. When to use: an agent's analysis needs an authoritative country-level economic figure. Inputs: country (ISO-2 or ISO-3 code) and indicator name.

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.
`country`	Yes	Country code, ISO-2 or ISO-3 (e.g. FR, USA)
`indicator`	Yes	Macroeconomic indicator name

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`year`	Yes
`value`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`country`	Yes
`indicator`	Yes
`source_url`	No
`indicator_code`	No

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and data nature. The description adds that the tool returns a precise figure from the World Bank, but does not elaborate on data freshness, historical scope, or pagination. This is acceptable but not rich 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?

The description is two sentences plus a clear list of indicators. It is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and well-structured. Every sentence adds value without 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 tool's complexity (3 params, output schema present), the description covers the essential use case and inputs. It could mention the optional async parameter or error handling, but the presence of output schema and high schema coverage makes the description sufficient.

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% with all parameters documented. The description reiterates the parameter meanings (country code, indicator name) and lists indicators, but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a macroeconomic indicator, lists specific indicators, mentions source (World Bank), and specifies use cases (market-sizing, finance, strategy). It distinguishes itself from a large set of sibling tools by focusing on authoritative country-level economic figures.

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 states 'When to use: an agent's analysis needs an authoritative country-level economic figure,' which provides clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools, which would be helpful given the many siblings.

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?