gapup-mcp

sabbatical_policy_comparator

Read-onlyIdempotent

Enables CHROs to benchmark their company's sabbatical policies against peer organizations using data from SHRM, Payscale, and Mercer. Inputs include company size, industry, and current policy details. Outputs structured comparison with cost impact analysis, eligibility criteria, and duration benchmarks. Ideal for strategic HR planning and policy optimization.

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.
`industry`	Yes	Industry classification code (NAICS)
`peerGroup`	No	List of peer company names for direct comparison
`companySize`	Yes	Number of employees in the company
`currentPolicy`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by detailing the output (cost impact analysis, eligibility criteria, duration benchmarks) and data sources, beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Four sentences, each adding value: purpose, data sources, inputs, outputs, and ideal use case. Front-loaded with the core function, 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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested object, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers purpose, inputs, outputs, and strategic context, and annotations cover behavioral traits. The output schema handles return values.

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 high (80%), with parameter descriptions already present. The description summarizes inputs (company size, industry, current policy details) but does not add 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's specific action: benchmarking sabbatical policies against peers using data from SHRM, Payscale, and Mercer. It distinguishes from similar sibling tools like 'executive_comp_peer_benchmark' by focusing on sabbaticals.

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?

Explicitly says 'Ideal for strategic HR planning and policy optimization,' providing context for when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the niche focus implies appropriate use.

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?