gapup-mcp

tax_optimization

Read-only

Optimisation fiscale — Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CFO). Returns a structured, audited deliverable. Reference case: Pennylane — Fiscalité optimisée · CIR €1.2M · IP Box France 10% · Économie totale €2.4M/an. Inputs are validated server-side — send the documented case fields.

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.
`company`	Yes
`ipAssets`	No
`activities`	Yes
`financials`	Yes
`jurisdictions`	Yes
`currentTaxOptimizations`	No

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it returns a structured, audited deliverable and inputs are validated server-side, but does not disclose other behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs, what happens on failure). The openWorldHint is left unexplained.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short but contains jargon ('Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CFO)') and an example case that may not be universally helpful. It is somewhat front-loaded with 'Optimisation fiscale' but could be clearer and more structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, 7 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the deliverable's format, prerequisites, or how to interpret the result, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is very low (14%, only async is described). The description does not add meaning to the multiple nested parameters (company, financials, jurisdictions, etc.) beyond instructing to 'send the documented case fields,' which is insufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the tool as tax optimization and mentions a deliverable, but it uses vague French jargon ('Optimisation fiscale') and fails to clearly state the specific verb and resource. It does not distinguish itself from many tax-related siblings like tax_compliance_multi or ma_tax_efficiency_mapper.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only notes that inputs are validated server-side, but lacks context on scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use the tool.

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?