gapup-mcp

ip_contract_clause_extractor

Read-onlyIdempotent

For CHRO use: analyzes employment contract text to identify and extract IP-related clauses such as invention assignment, confidentiality, non-compete, and patent rights. Returns structured data with clause types, risk levels, and relevant legal context. Ideal for contract review workflows, compliance checks, and IP protection strategy. Sources: USPTO PatFT and EPO Espacenet public datasets. Keywords: employment contract, IP clause, invention assignment, confidentiality agreement, non-compete, patent rights, CHRO tool.

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.
`contractText`	Yes	Full text of the employment contract to analyze
`jurisdiction`	No	Country/state jurisdiction for legal context (e.g., 'US-CA', 'DE')
`includeContext`	No	Whether to include legal context for each clause

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`clauses`	Yes
`sources`	No
`summary`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true. Description adds that it returns structured data with clause types, risk levels, and legal context, and mentions external data sources (USPTO, EPO). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Four sentences with front-loaded purpose, output description, use cases, and sources. Slightly verbose in the keywords sentence (repeats terms from first sentence), but otherwise well-structured and efficient.

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 output schema exists, the description adequately covers tool behavior, input requirements, use cases, and data sources. Does not miss any critical aspects for a tool of this complexity.

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 descriptions for all 4 parameters. Description does not add new semantics beyond schema, but reinforces the purpose (e.g., 'contractText' is the full text). Baseline 3 is appropriate for high-coverage schema with minimal added value.

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?

Clearly states the tool analyzes employment contract text to extract IP-related clauses (invention assignment, confidentiality, non-compete, patent rights). Specifies target user (CHRO) and differentiates from sibling tools like legal_clause_extractor by focusing on IP clauses in employment context.

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?

Provides context for use: 'For CHRO use', 'Ideal for contract review workflows, compliance checks, and IP protection strategy.' Does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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?