gapup-mcp

vendor_esg_diversity_scanner

Read-onlyIdempotent

For COOs: scans vendor ESG reports to identify suppliers lacking diversity disclosures in GRI or CDP filings. Input a supplier name or identifier to receive a structured assessment of gender, ethnicity, and board diversity metrics. Returns compliance gaps, missing data flags, and source references from CDP open data and GRI standards. Ideal for vendor risk assessment and ESG compliance tracking.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`year`	No	Reporting year to check (default: current year)
`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.
`supplierId`	No	CDP or GRI identifier for the supplier (e.g., CDP company ID)
`supplierName`	Yes	Exact or partial name of the supplier to scan

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes
`sources`	No
`warnings`	No
`reportLinks`	No	URLs to relevant ESG reports
`supplierName`	Yes
`complianceScore`	Yes	Percentage compliance with diversity disclosure standards
`diversityDisclosures`	Yes

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description's disclosure burden is lower. It adds context about the tool being a scanner that returns structured assessments, compliance gaps, missing data flags, and source references from CDP and GRI. However, it does not mention the async behavior (described only in schema), which is a minor omission.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the action and target audience. Every sentence provides value, with no wasted words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (as indicated by context), the description covers the key outputs (diversity metrics, compliance gaps, source references) and data sources (CDP open data, GRI standards). It does not mention the async parameter's implications, but overall it provides sufficient context for a read-only scanner 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%, with each parameter (year, async, supplierId, supplierName) having a clear description. The description reinforces that the tool expects a supplier name or identifier, but adds no new semantics 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 scans vendor ESG reports to identify suppliers lacking diversity disclosures in GRI or CDP filings, and returns structured assessments of diversity metrics, compliance gaps, and source references. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like supplier_esg_audit (broader ESG audit) and diversity_inclusion_metrics (internal metrics).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description targets COOs and states it is 'Ideal for vendor risk assessment and ESG compliance tracking,' but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives such as supplier_esg_audit or vendor_risk_assessor. Usage guidance is implied but lacks exclusions.

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?