gapup-mcp

ma_tax_efficiency_mapper

Read-onlyIdempotent

For CFOs evaluating cross-border M&A deals: analyzes tax efficiency by mapping withholding tax rates, transfer pricing regulations, and permanent establishment risks across specified jurisdictions. Inputs include acquirer/target jurisdictions, deal structure, and transaction value. Outputs jurisdiction-specific tax exposure, efficiency scores, and risk flags. Uses World Bank Tax Rates API, IMF SDR data, and SEC EDGAR filings for corporate tax disclosures. — pass async:true REQUIRED to avoid x402 timeout.

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.
`deal_structure`	No	Type of M&A transaction structure
`transaction_value`	No	Deal value in USD millions
`target_jurisdiction`	Yes	ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country code of the target entity
`acquirer_jurisdiction`	Yes	ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country code of the acquiring entity
`include_transfer_pricing`	No	Whether to analyze transfer pricing risks

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`sources`	No
`warnings`	No
`tax_treaties`	No
`efficiency_score`	No
`target_tax_rates`	No
`acquirer_tax_rates`	No
`transfer_pricing_risk`	No
`permanent_establishment_risk`	No

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by mentioning the use of external APIs (World Bank, IMF, SEC) and the requirement to pass `async:true` to avoid timeout, providing behavioral 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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose, followed by inputs, outputs, data sources, and a key usage note. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy or fluff, making it highly 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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, 2 required), the description provides a solid overview of purpose, inputs, outputs, and data sources. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values. However, it lacks information on error handling or rate limits, which would enhance completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so the description adds marginal value. It lists some parameters (acquirer/target jurisdictions, deal structure, transaction value) but does not elaborate beyond the schema. The async parameter receives extra guidance about timeout, but overall, parameter semantics are adequately covered by the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing tax efficiency for cross-border M&A deals by mapping withholding tax rates, transfer pricing regulations, and PE risks. It specifies inputs and outputs, making the purpose distinct from general tax tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ma_deal_screener or tax_compliance_multi.

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 targets CFOs evaluating cross-border M&A deals, implying usage context. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage without clear boundaries.

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?