gapup-mcp

nis2_supply_chain_dependency_map

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generates a visual dependency map of supply chain relationships under the NIS2 Directive, scoring criticality based on regulatory sources like EUR-Lex and CNIL decisions. Designed for legal and compliance teams to identify high-risk third-party dependencies. Inputs include organization identifiers and optional scope filters. Outputs structured dependency data with criticality scores and regulatory references.

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.
`depth`	No	Dependency chain depth to analyze
`scope`	No	Analysis scope: full supply chain or critical dependencies only
`sector`	No	NIS2 sector classification (e.g., 'energy', 'transport')
`organizationId`	Yes	Unique identifier for the organization (e.g., VAT number or LEI)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`sources`	No
`warnings`	No
`dependencies`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context about generating visual maps, scoring criticality, and referencing regulatory sources (EUR-Lex, CNIL). It does not contradict annotations and provides additional transparency beyond structured fields.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by target audience and input/output summary. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 rich annotations and output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains regulatory sources, criticality scoring, target users, and output structure, covering all relevant context for a generative tool.

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 all parameters described in the schema. The description only summarizes inputs as 'organization identifiers and optional scope filters,' which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 generates a visual dependency map of supply chain relationships under NIS2, scoring criticality based on regulatory sources. It explicitly names the target users (legal/compliance teams) and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on NIS2 supply chain dependencies.

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 indicates it is designed for legal and compliance teams to identify high-risk third-party dependencies, providing clear context. However, it does not include explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternative tool suggestions, though the sibling list includes many other compliance 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

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?