gapup-mcp

ip_protection_pilot

Read-only

Pilote de protection IP — Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (RISK). Returns a structured, audited deliverable. Reference case: Carbios SA — Deeptech FR recyclage PET enzymatique · 14 brevets EP/US/FR · 5 concurrents · licensing €2-8M potentiel. 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
`company`	Yes
`competitors`	Yes
`targetMarkets`	Yes
`patentPortfolioSummary`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed12 schema fields changedJun 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / company / properties

Added value: +{
+  "country": {
+    "maxLength": 80,
+    "minLength": 2,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "fte": {
+    "minimum": 1,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  "name": {
+    "maxLength": 120,
+    "minLength": 2,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "revenueEur": {
+    "minimum": 0,
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "sector": {
+    "maxLength": 120,
+    "minLength": 2,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}

addedInput schema / properties / company / required

Added value: +[
+  "name",
+  "sector",
+  "country",
+  "revenueEur",
+  "fte"
+]

addedInput schema / properties / competitors / items

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 120,
+  "minLength": 2,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / competitors / maxItems
```
Added value: +10
```
addedInput schema / properties / competitors / minItems
```
Added value: +1
```
addedInput schema / properties / focus / maxLength
```
Added value: +600
```
addedInput schema / properties / patentPortfolioSummary / maxLength
```
Added value: +1000
```
addedInput schema / properties / patentPortfolioSummary / minLength
```
Added value: +10
```

addedInput schema / properties / targetMarkets / items

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 60,
+  "minLength": 2,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / targetMarkets / maxItems
```
Added value: +5
```
addedInput schema / properties / targetMarkets / minItems
```
Added value: +1
```

addedInput schema / required

Added value: +[
+  "company",
+  "patentPortfolioSummary",
+  "targetMarkets",
+  "competitors"
+]

First observedMay 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that inputs are validated server-side and the deliverable is audited. This is useful but does not cover rate limits, data sources, or further behavioral specifics. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence plus a reference example. The cryptic phrase 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (RISK)' and the lengthy Carbios case add clutter. It is not excessively long, but the structure could be more direct.

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?

For a complex tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain what the audited deliverable contains, how to structure input fields, or the purpose of 'focus'. The reference case provides a hint but is insufficient for correct invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 17% (only 'async' is described), and the description does not compensate. It references 'documented case fields' and gives a case example, but does not explain required parameters like company, patentPortfolioSummary, targetMarkets, competitors, or focus.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool is an IP protection pilot that returns a structured, audited deliverable, referencing a specific case (Carbios SA). However, it lacks a clear action verb (e.g., assess, generate) and does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like patent_landscape or patent_ownership_audit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only instructs to send the documented case fields, implying a submission workflow, but does not mention suitability, exclusions, or comparison with other IP-related tools.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?