Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

bond_covenant_esg_compliance_checker

Read-onlyIdempotent

As a CFO, quickly assess whether your bond covenants meet ESG compliance standards set by BIS and ECB. This tool analyzes covenant text against regulatory benchmarks, identifying potential ESG-related risks in carbon emissions, governance practices, and social impact clauses. Input bond covenant details and receive structured compliance insights with source references. Ideal for pre-issuance due diligence or ongoing monitoring of existing bond portfolios.

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.
couponTypeNoType of bond coupon
covenantTextYesFull text of the bond covenant to analyze
issuerSectorNoIndustry sector of the bond issuer (e.g., energy, finance)
jurisdictionNoLegal jurisdiction governing the bond (e.g., EU, US)
maturityDateNoMaturity date of the bond

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
sourcesNo
warningsNo
riskAreasNo
complianceScoreNo
recommendationsNo

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint as true. The description is consistent and adds context about the analytical nature and output format ('structured compliance insights with source references'). 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and efficiently communicates key tasks and value. Every sentence adds value; no redundant information.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers the return format. It specifies the type of analysis and regulatory benchmarks. For a tool with 6 parameters, the description is reasonably complete, though it could mention the specific parameters or sectors more explicitly.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description generically mentions 'bond covenant details' without adding meaningful detail beyond what the schema provides. It does not clarify parameter usage 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: assessing bond covenant ESG compliance against BIS and ECB standards. It uses specific verbs and resources ('analyzes covenant text', 'identifies ESG-related risks') and distinguishes itself from siblings like bond_covenant_monitor by its regulatory focus.

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 provides clear usage context: 'pre-issuance due diligence or ongoing monitoring'. It implicitly advises when to use (for ESG compliance) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools. A slight gap in exclusion guidance.

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