gapup-mcp

tool_recommend

Read-only

Cross-tool recommendation system: given a free-text intent, returns the most appropriate tools from the 170+ Gapup MCP catalogue, ranked by confidence, with pre-filled input suggestions and an optimal multi-tool chain when applicable. Use this first when you are unsure which tool to call — it navigates the full catalogue for you. Supports 15+ static pre-designed chains for frequent intents (M&A due diligence, sanctions screening, ESG 360, AI Act compliance, FTO patent clearance, crypto wallet tracking, etc.). Domains: compliance | finance | intel | legal | content | data | trade | infra. Pure compute — $0.01/call, no external fetch. Ideal as a first call in any multi-step agent workflow.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lang`	No	Optional ISO 639-1 language hint (fr, en, de, zh, es …). Used for language-aware boosting.
`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.
`domain`	No	Optional domain hint to boost tools in this category.
`intent`	Yes	Free-text description of what you want to accomplish. E.g. 'Run a full M&A due diligence on Acme Corp' or 'Je veux vérifier qu'un fournisseur n'est pas sous sanctions OFAC'. FR/EN/DE/ZH supported.
`max_results`	No	Max number of recommendations returned (1-10). Default 5.
`include_chain`	No	Whether to include a suggested_chain of tools in the optimal sequence. Default true. Chain is always included for well-known intents (M&A, compliance, ESG, etc.).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`intent`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`sources`	No
`not_covered`	No
`quality_score`	Yes
`recommendations`	Yes
`suggested_chain`	No
`alternative_paths`	No

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the tool's behavior: pure compute, $0.01/call, no external fetch, support for async and chains. It does not contradict annotations. Some details about response structure could be added, but the description is sufficiently transparent.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and uses bullet points for domains. It is informative but somewhat verbose; however, every sentence serves a purpose. Minor redundancy could be removed.

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 (6 params, output schema exists), the description covers all key aspects: purpose, usage, cost, domains, chain support, async behavior. It is complete for an agent to understand when and how to use the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description reinforces high-level semantics (e.g., 'intent' is free-text, 'domain' is an enum) but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the input schema provides.

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 function: a cross-tool recommendation system that returns the most appropriate tools based on a free-text intent. It uses specific verbs ('recommend', 'navigates') and distinguishes itself from siblings by being the first call when unsure which tool to use.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use this first when you are unsure which tool to call' and positions it as ideal for multi-step workflows. It provides domain hints and chain support. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide specific alternative 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?