Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

battle_cards_live

Read-only

Fiche de combat live — Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CRO). Returns a structured, audited deliverable. Reference case: Gapup Hub vs McKinsey Lilli — Deal SaaS B2B €500k · Win rate +11 pts · 6 objections clés armées. Inputs are validated server-side — send the documented case fields.

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.
ourOfferYes
competitorYes
dealContextYes
knownWeaknessesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / competitor / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "category": {
+    "maxLength": 120,
+    "minLength": 2,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "name": {
+    "maxLength": 200,
+    "minLength": 2,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / competitor / required
      Added value: +[
+  "name",
+  "category"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / dealContext / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "buyerPersona": {
+    "maxLength": 200,
+    "minLength": 2,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "dealSizeEur": {
+    "minimum": 0,
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "sector": {
+    "maxLength": 120,
+    "minLength": 2,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / dealContext / required
      Added value: +[
+  "sector",
+  "buyerPersona"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / knownWeaknesses / maxLength
      Added value: +400
    • addedInput schema / properties / ourOffer / maxLength
      Added value: +400
    • addedInput schema / properties / ourOffer / minLength
      Added value: +10
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "competitor",
+  "dealContext",
+  "ourOffer"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, establishing safety and flexibility. The description adds some context with 'Inputs are validated server-side' and 'Returns a structured, audited deliverable,' which is useful but minimal beyond what annotations convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is cluttered with marketing-like content ('Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise' and a case study) that does not aid functional understanding. It repeats the title and lacks a clear, front-loaded purpose, making it inefficient for an agent to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This tool has complex nested inputs, no output schema, and low schema coverage, yet the description fails to explain the deliverable's content, required case fields, or expected output format. The generic 'structured, audited deliverable' is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Only 20% of parameters have schema descriptions (async only), and the description does not compensate. It says 'send the documented case fields' but gives no details on competitor, dealContext, ourOffer, or knownWeaknesses, leaving the agent without essential parameter meaning.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description is vague; it repeats the title 'Fiche de combat live' and mentions 'C-suite expertise (CRO)' without a clear verb or resource. The reference case hints at competitive battle cards, but the actual function (e.g., 'generates a battle card') is never explicitly stated.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like battle_plan or competitive_deep_dive. The description only includes a reference case and input validation note, with no context for selection or alternatives.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources