gapup-mcp

financial_model_3statement

Read-only

Pure-compute 3-statement financial model builder (Income Statement + Balance Sheet + Cash Flow). Feed assumptions (revenue growth, COGS%, OpEx, CapEx, working capital, tax rate, depreciation, debt schedule) → receive a full 3-5 year projection with integrated DCF valuation. Supports IFRS / US_GAAP / PRC_GAAP (中国会计准则) norms with bilingual ZH+EN labels for PRC. Modes: build (full 3-statement model) | scenario_analysis (base/bull/bear ±20% growth) | sensitivity (1 KPI × 1 input, 5-point grid). No external data needed — all computed from assumptions. ICP: VC due diligence, M&A analysts, CFO SMB, startup founders pitching investors, biotech/SaaS modeling. Returns balance_check_ok per year, DCF enterprise/equity value, and coherence warnings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mode`	Yes	build = full 3-statement model \| scenario_analysis = base/bull/bear \| sensitivity = 1 KPI × 1 input
`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.
`assumptions`	Yes	Financial assumptions for the model
`sensitivity_kpi`	No	KPI to observe in sensitivity mode.
`sensitivity_input`	No	Assumption param to vary in sensitivity mode. E.g. 'growth_rates_pct[0]' or 'cogs_pct_of_revenue'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	Yes
`norms`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`sources`	No
`warnings`	Yes
`cash_flow`	No
`scenarios`	No
`sensitivity`	No
`balance_sheet`	No
`quality_score`	Yes
`valuation_dcf`	No
`income_statement`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses that the tool is 'pure-compute' (read-only), requires no external data, and returns specific outputs like balance checks and coherence warnings, adding value beyond annotations which already indicate read-only.

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 fairly long but each sentence provides useful information (purpose, modes, norms, returns, ICP). It is well-structured but could be slightly more concise without losing content.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested assumptions, output schema), the description covers all aspects: modes, accounting norms, target audience, and return values. No gaps identified.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description adds high-level context about norms and modes but does not provide additional meaning for individual parameters beyond what the schema already offers.

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 explicitly states it is a '3-statement financial model builder' and lists the three statements (Income Statement, Balance Sheet, Cash Flow). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'margin_doctor_finance' or 'working_capital' by focusing on comprehensive projection and DCF valuation.

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 provides clear context on when to use (VC due diligence, M&A analysts, CFO SMB, etc.) and what inputs are needed. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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?