Check if EU GPSR applies to your product, and estimate what your small business is worth.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools address completely separate domains: one estimates business valuation, the other checks EU GPSR compliance. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tool names follow the same forge_ + subject + action pattern (valuation_estimate, requirements_check). The naming convention is consistent and predictable.
Two tools is on the low end, especially given the broad server name covering compliance and business decisions. The tools are useful individually, but the set feels thin for the stated scope.
The server provides only two isolated capabilities with no surrounding workflow coverage. For a server spanning compliance and business decisions, substantial gaps remain such as supporting documents, follow-up actions, or additional compliance/valuation scenarios.
Estimate what a small business is worth using Normalised EBITDA and typical small-business earnings multiples. Answers "how much is my business worth?" from real figures — revenue, cost of goods sold, operating expenses, owner pay and a fair-market salary for the owner role — rather than a generic rule of thumb. Produces an indicative enterprise value range, not a professional appraisal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ownerPay | Yes | Total owner compensation taken from the business. | |
| annualRevenue | Yes | Annual revenue. | |
| costOfGoodsSold | Yes | Annual cost of goods sold. | |
| fairMarketSalary | Yes | What it would cost to hire someone to do the owner role. | |
| operatingExpenses | Yes | Annual operating expenses, excluding owner pay. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly states the methodology, the input categories, and the output type (indicative enterprise value range), and includes a limitation statement ('not a professional appraisal'). It does not address edge cases or assumptions about debt/cash/working capital, but for an indicative estimator the disclosure is strong.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose, then supplies method, input types, and output format, including an important caveat. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, methodology, and output format (an enterprise value range). Minor gaps remain: it does not describe the exact structure of the range or the underlying assumptions for the multiples. These are non-blocking for a simple estimator, so a 4 is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how the inputs relate to Normalised EBITDA and why both owner-pay and fair-market salary are needed. The schema descriptions are minimal ('Annual revenue'), so the description's framing around real figures and owner-role cost enriches the parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific action and resource: 'Estimate what a small business is worth' and further specifies the method (Normalised EBITDA and typical multiples). It directly answers a concrete question ('how much is my business worth?') and clearly differentiates itself from generic rules of thumb and professional appraisals. The sibling tool is in an unrelated domain, so no further distinction is necessary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear use context: estimate business value from real financial figures rather than a rule-of-thumb approximation. It also states an exclusion: the result is indicative and not a professional appraisal. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternative tools or broader when-not-to-use scenarios, stopping short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check whether the EU General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR) applies to a specific physical product sold into the EU, and which technical documentation is required. Answers the question "does GPSR apply to my product and what do I need?" for sellers on Amazon, Etsy, Shopify and other marketplaces. Requires four facts about the product that only the seller knows, so it produces a real per-product answer rather than general guidance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ceOrUkcaMarking | Yes | Does it carry CE/UKCA marking or require conformity assessment? | |
| productCategory | No | Product type, e.g. "leather bags", "candles", "cotton tote". | |
| babyOrChildDirected | Yes | Intended for babies or children (toys, childcare, nursery)? | |
| electricalBatteryOrRadio | Yes | Electrical, battery-powered, or radio/wireless? | |
| ingestibleSkinOrChemical | Yes | Ingested, applied to skin, or a chemical/detergent/candle? |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool requires four seller-known facts and produces a per-product answer rather than general guidance, which is useful. However, it does not mention output format, whether external research is involved, or how the tool handles uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides accessible clarification and a useful qualifier about per-product answers. The second sentence is slightly redundant with the first, but the marketplace context adds value, so it is still well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity, full schema coverage, and absence of an output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to select the tool and understand what inputs are expected and what kind of answer will be produced. It could mention the output format in more detail, but the core usage scenario is well covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and every parameter has a clear description with enums, so the schema already handles parameter semantics. The description adds the context that exactly four required facts are needed, but does not need to restate parameter meanings. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Check') with a clear resource ('EU General Product Safety Regulation') and defines the exact question answered: whether GPSR applies and what documentation is needed. It also distinguishes itself from generic guidance by noting it produces a real per-product answer based on seller-provided facts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly specifies when to use the tool: for a specific physical product sold into the EU by sellers on Amazon, Etsy, Shopify, and other marketplaces. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for this set of siblings this is not a meaningful gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
forge_business_valuation_estimateforge_gpsr_requirements_checkGPSR compliance check and small-business valuation estimate, from Instilus.
Free SME valuation, sell-readiness, M&A pricing, partner and deal-referral tools in EN/FR/ES/PT.
Source-cited EU/UK/US/AU market-access checks for Amazon and cross-border product compliance.
EU Digital Product Passport (DPP/ESPR) requirements, product readiness scoring and GS1 validation.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
