gapup-mcp

esrs_narrative_builder

Read-only

Architecte du narratif ESRS / CSRD — Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (SUSTAINABILITY). Returns a structured, audited deliverable. Reference case: L'Oréal France — narratif ESRS E1+E5 + S1 + G1 · CSRD reporting 2025-2026 · double-matérialité chiffrée. Inputs are validated server-side — send the documented case fields.

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.
`focus`	No
`scope`	Yes
`company`	Yes
`context`	Yes
`presenterScript`	No

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description states it 'builds' and 'architects' a narrative, suggesting a mutating operation, but the annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, indicating a read-only operation. This contradiction reduces transparency. Additionally, it does not explain other behavioral traits like permissions or rate limits beyond the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is two sentences, but the first sentence is jargon-heavy (French/English mix) and includes unnecessary details like the reference case. It could be more concise and structured for clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has complex nested parameters (company, scope, context) and no output schema. The description vaguely mentions a 'structured, audited deliverable' but does not explain return format, pagination, or how errors are handled. This is insufficient for such complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 17%, meaning most parameters have no descriptions in the schema. The description does not add any meaning to the parameters; it only refers to 'documented case fields' without elaboration.

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 it builds ESRS/CSRD narrative for sustainability reporting and returns a structured, audited deliverable. It also provides a reference case, making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sustainability_report' or 'sustainability_reporting_pilot'.

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 constructing ESRS narrative and notes that inputs are validated server-side. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives.

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?