Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

africa_trade_barrier_breaker

Read-onlyIdempotent

As a COO, analyze non-tariff trade barriers (NTBs) across African trade corridors using WITS and UNCTAD STAT data. Input origin/destination countries and product HS codes to receive barrier mapping with severity scores and actionable mitigation strategies. Returns structured risk assessment, regulatory compliance gaps, and supply chain optimization recommendations. Pass async:true to avoid timeout.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
hs_codeNo6-digit Harmonized System product code
origin_countryYesISO 3-letter country code for export origin
destination_countryYesISO 3-letter country code for import destination
include_regulatory_detailsNoWhether to include detailed regulatory text in output

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
sourcesYes
warningsYes
barrier_summaryYes
trade_flow_impactNo
regulatory_detailsNo
mitigation_strategiesYes

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, indicating safe, deterministic behavior. The description adds value by specifying data sources and the async parameter to avoid timeouts. No contradictions with annotations; however, it does not discuss error handling or data freshness limits.

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 concise at 4 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence introduces distinct information: user role and data sources, inputs, outputs, and a practical tip. No superfluous content; ideal for quick understanding.

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's complexity (5 parameters, output schema exists) and the safety annotations, the description covers key aspects: purpose, inputs, outputs, and async usage. It enables an agent to decide to call the tool for NTB analysis. Minor omission: no mention of typical runtime or prerequisites, but not critical.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the tool description adds limited new meaning. It reiterates the role of origin/destination countries and HS codes, and emphasizes the async parameter's use. This provides marginal value beyond the schema, which already includes formats and constraints.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing non-tariff trade barriers across African corridors using WITS and UNCTAD STAT data. It specifies inputs (origin/destination countries, HS codes) and outputs (risk assessment, mitigation strategies). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tariff_arbitrage_finder or trade_finance_eligibility, though explicit sibling contrast is missing.

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 identifies the target user (COO) and provides a practical async usage tip. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare it to similar siblings (e.g., tariff_impact_simulator). More definitive guidance on tool selection would improve clarity.

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

All mcp-knowledge 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

C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially in competitive intelligence, ESG, and risk assessment. For example, there are multiple tools for competitor analysis (competitive_deep_dive, competitor_intel, competitor_moves, etc.) with unclear boundaries. Agents would struggle to select the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are a mix of English and French, and follow no consistent pattern. Some use snake_case (e.g., abm_architect, action_plan_esg), while others are verb-focused (e.g., content_catalog, fx_rate). The lack of a uniform naming convention makes it hard for agents to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 271 tools, the server is excessively large. Even for a broad knowledge domain, this number of tools makes discovery and selection inefficient. Typical coherent servers have 3-15 tools; this has an order of magnitude more, indicating poor scoping.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many domains (compliance, finance, marketing, HR, etc.), but the coverage is uneven due to redundancy. Key areas have multiple overlapping tools, while some sub-domains may still have gaps. Overall, the surface is broad but not well-curated.

Resources