Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

arbitration_awards_lookup

Read-onlyIdempotent

Commercial arbitration intelligence for litigation lawyers, M&A due diligence teams, sovereign wealth funds and trade finance compliance. Covers 8 major institutions: ICC, AAA, LCIA, HKIAC, SIAC, CIETAC, DIAC, ICDR.

Three modes: • party_lookup — find awards by party name (searches 20 landmark public awards + JusMundi best-effort) • institution_index — browse awards and caseload stats per institution with date range filter • clause_check — audit an arbitration clause for missing elements (institution, seat, language, arbitrator count, governing law, binding nature)

Note: Most arbitration awards are confidential. This tool surfaces public awards (Yukos, Crystallex, Achmea, etc.) plus redacted statistics from institutional annual reports. Private awards are not accessible.

Cache: 24h (arbitration data is very stable). No API key required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeYesparty_lookup: search by party name or keyword. institution_index: browse awards by institution + stats. clause_check: audit an arbitration clause for issues.
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.
queryYesFor party_lookup: party name or keyword (e.g. "Yukos", "Russia"). For institution_index: institution name or keyword. For clause_check: full text of the arbitration clause to audit.
date_toNoISO date filter to (YYYY-MM-DD). Applied to award_date.
date_fromNoISO date filter from (YYYY-MM-DD). Applied to award_date.
institutionNoFilter by institution. Default 'all'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeYes
queryYes
awardsNo
statusYes
sourcesYes
clause_checkNo
quality_scoreYes
institution_statsNo

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds value by stating cache duration (24h), no API key required, and the fact that most awards are confidential (public only). This goes beyond annotations to set proper expectations. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with sections for overview, modes, notes, and cache. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While slightly long, each sentence adds value (no fluff). It earns its place.

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 complexity of three modes, the presence of an output schema (so return format not needed), and the annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description is complete. It covers limitations (confidential awards), cache behavior, modes, and parameters. No gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description enriches parameter understanding by providing examples for `query` (e.g., 'Yukos', 'Russia') and clarifying the purpose of each mode. It also briefly explains the `async` parameter. This adds meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 it provides commercial arbitration intelligence with three distinct modes (party_lookup, institution_index, clause_check). It specifies the resource (arbitration awards) and the action (lookup/search/audit). It distinguishes from sibling tools by being a specialized arbitration tool, with no direct alternative among the listed siblings.

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 describes each mode's use case (e.g., 'party_lookup — find awards by party name', 'clause_check — audit an arbitration clause for missing elements'). It also notes the limitation to public awards, providing context for when the tool is appropriate. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the guidance is clear and sufficient.

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