gapup-mcp

market_research_brief

Read-only

Generate a structured, sourced market research brief on any market, sector or industry. Returns a machine-readable note with six sections: an executive overview, a market-size estimate (with assumptions and sources — no invented figures), key players, demand & technology trends, risk factors, and a traceable source list. When to use this tool: an agent needs to assess a new market, validate a business opportunity, prepare a pitch, or benchmark a sector before a strategic decision. Data is assembled live from keyless public sources: Wikipedia (sector context), World Bank (macro GDP/population for market sizing), REST Countries (geo context). Fields that cannot be sourced are marked 'unavailable' rather than estimated. Inputs: topic (required), geo and sector (optional refinements).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`geo`	No	Optional geography to scope the brief (country name, region, or continent — e.g. 'France', 'Southeast Asia')
`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.
`topic`	Yes	Market or sector to research (e.g. 'electric vehicle batteries', 'B2B SaaS CRM Europe', 'telemedicine Africa')
`sector`	No	Optional parent sector to disambiguate the topic (e.g. 'healthcare', 'energy', 'software')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`geo`	Yes
`risks`	Yes
`topic`	Yes
`sector`	Yes
`trends`	Yes
`sources`	Yes	All sources consulted, with URL and retrieval status
`overview`	Yes	Executive summary of the market
`key_players`	Yes
`generated_at`	Yes	ISO-8601 timestamp of generation
`market_size_estimate`	Yes	Market size estimate with hypotheses. All figures sourced or marked unavailable.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: specific data sources (Wikipedia, World Bank, REST Countries), the 'keyless' public source nature, and the policy of marking unsourced fields as 'unavailable'. It does not discuss rate limits or response time, but the async parameter addresses timeouts.

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 four concise sentences, front-loading the main purpose and output structure, then usage guidelines, then sources and data policy. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the 4 parameters (no enums, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, output sections (six specified), when to use, data sources, and handling of unavailable data. It does not describe return values in detail, but the output schema covers that. Overall, it is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the schema already describes all four parameters. The description adds context by stating topic is required and geo and sector are optional refinements, with examples. The async parameter is omitted from the description but is covered by the schema. This adds marginal value beyond the schema, earning a 4.

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 it generates a structured, sourced market research brief on any market/sector/industry, listing six specific sections. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'market_sizing' and 'competitive_deep_dive' by emphasizing the comprehensive, sourced brief format and listing specific use cases.

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?

The description includes an explicit 'When to use this tool' section listing four scenarios (assess new market, validate opportunity, prepare pitch, benchmark before strategic decision). It does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use or alternatives, which is a minor gap for a 5.

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?