gapup-mcp

procurement_six_sigma_waste_hunter

Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyzes procurement waste for COOs using Six Sigma DMAIC framework and EU TED tender data. Identifies non-value-added activities, overprocessing, and inefficiencies in procurement workflows. Inputs include procurement category, time period, and organizational unit. Outputs waste classification, cost impact estimates, and process improvement recommendations. — pass async:true REQUIRED to avoid x402 timeout.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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.
`time_period`	Yes	Time period for analysis (e.g., '2023-01-01/2023-12-31')
`six_sigma_tool`	No		DMAIC
`include_ted_data`	No
`organizational_unit`	No	Specific business unit or department (e.g., 'EMEA', 'Global Operations')
`procurement_category`	Yes	Specific procurement category to analyze (e.g., 'IT hardware', 'facilities')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`sources`	No
`warnings`	No
`ted_data_coverage`	No
`cost_impact_estimate`	No
`waste_classification`	No
`process_improvement_recommendations`	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, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by specifying the use of EU TED tender data, the timeout risk requiring async, and the outputs (waste classification, cost impact, recommendations). 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences plus a concise async note. All information is front-loaded with no wasted words. Every sentence contributes to understanding.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), and the description covers high-level outputs. With schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate for a moderately complex analysis tool. Could mention output format but not necessary.

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 description coverage is 67% (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description mentions key inputs but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for all parameters. The async warning is an important addition but limited to one parameter.

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 verb 'analyzes', the resource 'procurement waste', the target audience 'COOs', and the framework 'Six Sigma DMAIC'. It distinguishes itself from sibling procurement tools like procurement_spend_optim by focusing on waste identification and improvement recommendations.

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?

Provides clear context on inputs (procurement category, time period, organizational unit) and includes a critical note about using async to avoid timeout. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like supplier_esg_audit or procurement_spend_optim.

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?