gapup-mcp

ftg_sourcing_buyers

Read-only

Return verified local buyers in a country — companies sourcing a given commodity, with buyer type, city, website, annual volume range and certification requirements. When to use this tool: an agent builds a sourcing or export shortlist, or needs real B2B demand contacts in a market. Input: a country and an optional commodity filter.

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.
`limit`	No	Maximum buyers to return (default 20)
`country`	Yes	Country ISO-2 code or name
`commodity`	No	Optional commodity slug to filter buyers by

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`buyers`	Yes
`country`	Yes
`commodity`	No
`buyer_count`	Yes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which establish a read-only, potentially non-exhaustive data source. The description aligns with these (returning 'verified local buyers') and adds the nuance of async execution. No contradiction, and the description provides 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?

The description is extremely concise (two sentences plus a usage note), front-loaded with the core purpose, and free of redundant or irrelevant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity of the tool (4 parameters, required country only, output schema present), the description covers the key aspects: input, output, usage context, and async behavior. It lacks explicit error handling or pagination instructions, but the limit parameter and async mechanism are documented in the schema. Overall complete for a lookup tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description only reiterates 'Input: a country and an optional commodity filter' without adding new details or clarifying format beyond the schema. 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 action ('Return verified local buyers'), the specific resource (country and commodity), and the output fields (buyer type, city, website, annual volume range, certification requirements). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ftg_investor_directory or ftg_seller_catalog, which target different roles.

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?

Explicit usage context: 'When to use this tool: an agent builds a sourcing or export shortlist, or needs real B2B demand contacts in a market.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools for sellers or investors, but the sibling list and the description's focus on 'buyers' imply differentiation.

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?