Skip to main content
Glama

gapup-mcp

by io.github.getgapup

content_catalog

Read-only

Browse the Gapup gold-standard content catalogue — video games, films, TV series and music. Returns franchises with their works (title, release year). When to use this tool: an agent needs structured, audited metadata for a cultural franchise, wants to resolve a title to a canonical entity, or browses a domain's catalogue before requesting enrichment. Inputs: a content domain and an optional case-insensitive name filter. Each franchise id can be passed to content_enrichment for its fine-grained tag profile.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoOptional case-insensitive substring filter on franchise name
asyncNoIf 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.
limitNoMaximum number of franchises to return (default 20)
domainYesContent domain to browse

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYes
domainYes
franchisesYes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description isn't burdened with safety. It adds behavioral detail that the data is 'gold-standard' and 'audited', that the name filter is case-insensitive (though schema also says this), and that franchise IDs link to content_enrichment. This goes beyond the basic read-only declaration.

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?

Three sentences: what it returns, when to use it, and how it links to enrichment. No filler, front-loaded with the key information.

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?

The tool is a simple browse/query operation with a rich output schema. The description covers the return value, domain filter, name filter, and cross-reference to enrichment, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description only summarizes domain and name filter, adding no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Browse') and names the resource ('Gapup gold-standard content catalogue') with explicit domains. It clearly states the return payload ('franchises with their works (title, release year)') and distinguishes from sibling tools like content_enrichment.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states when to use: for structured audited metadata, resolving titles to canonical entities, or browsing before enrichment. It also names the alternative 'content_enrichment' for tag profiles, providing a clear exclusion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All gapup-mcp toolsInspect
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

C2.4/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Over 50 tools share the identical template 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise' with similar French descriptions and reference cases, making their boundaries indistinguishable. Clusters like competitor_intel, competitive_deep_dive, competitor_moves, competitor_profiles, competitor_pricing_radar, competitor_pricing_scrape, and competitor_recommendations heavily overlap in purpose.

Naming Consistency1/5

Names are chaotic: mix of French and English, snake_case and camelCase, verb_noun, noun, and adjective forms with no uniform pattern. Examples like 'bp_narratif', 'content_enrichment', 'ai_governance_full_report_async', and 'job_result' show no coherent naming convention.

Tool Count1/5

271 tools is far beyond any reasonable MCP server scope, creating an overwhelming selection burden for agents. This count vastly exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and makes navigation impractical.

Completeness2/5

While the server covers many business domains, it lacks lifecycle operations (e.g., no update/delete tools for the deliverables it generates) and the input specifications are vague ('documented case fields' without documentation), creating functional dead ends. The sheer breadth does not compensate for these gaps.

Resources