gapup-mcp

logistics_esg_incident_tracker

Read-onlyIdempotent

Tracks real-time ESG incidents in logistics networks for COOs, including supply chain disruptions, regulatory violations, and sustainability risks. Inputs: geographic region, incident type (e.g., emissions, labor, deforestation), and time range. Outputs: structured incident data with severity, location, and source verification. Uses CDP open data and UNCTAD STAT for comprehensive coverage. Keywords: ESG, logistics, supply chain, sustainability, compliance, risk management.

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.
`region`	Yes	Geographic region filter (e.g., 'Europe', 'Asia', 'Global')
`endDate`	No	End date for incident search (ISO 8601)
`severity`	No	Minimum severity level to include
`startDate`	No	Start date for incident search (ISO 8601)
`incidentType`	Yes	Type of ESG incident to track

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, non-destructive operations. The description adds value by specifying data sources (CDP, UNCTAD STAT) and output structure (severity, location, source verification), enhancing transparency 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 concise, with three focused sentences and keywords. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently covers inputs, outputs, and data sources. No redundant or vague language.

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 presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, inputs, outputs, and data sources. It covers key aspects for a tracking tool, though it omits the async parameter's polling mechanism, which is documented in the schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context by listing inputs (geographic region, incident type, time range) and providing examples of incident types (emissions, labor, deforestation), which complements the schema without contradicting it.

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 tool tracks ESG incidents in logistics networks, specifying the resource (ESG incidents) and scope (logistics networks). It differentiates from siblings by focusing on real-time tracking and specific examples like supply chain disruptions and regulatory violations.

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 COOs tracking logistics ESG incidents, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like esg_audit_multi or supplier_esg_audit. No exclusion criteria or comparative context provided.

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?