gapup-mcp

sharia_compliance_screener

Read-only

Sharia compliance screening engine for Islamic banks, Sukuk issuers, Gulf sovereign funds, halal investment managers and MENA family offices. Zero competing MCP on this vertical.

Standards supported: AAOIFI (default) | MSCI_Islamic | S&P_Sharia | DJIM

Four modes: • company — Full Sharia screen of a listed company: business activity (halal/haram/mixed) + AAOIFI financial ratios (debt/market-cap <30%, interest-assets <30%, non-compliant revenue <5%) • instrument — Sukuk / halal fund classification by ISIN or name. Maps to known Sharia boards. • sector_screen — Industry classification (halal/haram/mixed) with rationale + examples. Static AAOIFI-based map covering 40+ sectors. • financial_ratios — AAOIFI ratio computation on fetched or provided financials.

Prohibited activities screened: alcohol, gambling, pork, weapons, pornography, tobacco, conventional banking (riba), conventional insurance, adult entertainment, embryonic stem cells.

Output includes compliance_status (halal/haram/doubtful_mixed/purification_required), purification_pct when applicable, P0/P1/P2 signals, quality_score, and sources.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mode`	Yes	Screening mode. company=full listed company screen, instrument=Sukuk/fund classification, sector_screen=industry halal/haram classification, financial_ratios=AAOIFI ratio check.
`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.
`query`	Yes	Entity to screen. Company name, ticker or ISIN (e.g. "Aramco", "AAPL", "tobacco", "XS1234567890").
`standard`	No	Sharia standard to apply. Default "AAOIFI" (most conservative, widely accepted by Islamic banks).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`company`	No
`signals`	Yes
`sources`	Yes
`instrument`	No
`quality_score`	Yes
`sector_screen`	No
`standard_used`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details such as supported standards, prohibited activities, and output fields (compliance_status, purification_pct, etc.), which provide useful context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but well-structured with bullet points for modes, standards, and prohibited activities. It front-loads purpose and is efficiently organized, though slightly verbose.

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 (4 modes, multiple standards, prohibitions) and the existence of an output schema (not shown but mentioned), the description fully explains the tool's capabilities, inputs, and outputs. No gaps are apparent.

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%, with all parameters described. The description adds extra meaning, such as default standard (AAOIFI) and why it is preferred, and the max length constraint. This adds value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 is a 'Sharia compliance screening engine' with four well-defined modes. It explicitly claims 'Zero competing MCP on this vertical,' distinguishing itself from all sibling tools.

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 explains when to use each mode (company, instrument, sector_screen, financial_ratios) with examples. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the specificity and the claim of no competitors implies clear context.

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?