Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

bond_covenant_monitor

Read-onlyIdempotent

As a CFO, monitor bond covenant compliance by analyzing leverage ratios (debt-to-equity, debt-to-EBITDA) and interest coverage ratios using real-time financial data. Input a company's ticker symbol and optional covenant thresholds to receive compliance status, key financial metrics, and SEC filing references. Ideal for proactive debt management and regulatory compliance tracking. Keywords: bond covenants, leverage ratio, interest coverage, debt compliance, SEC filings, financial health.

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.
tickerYesCompany ticker symbol (e.g., 'AAPL')
covenantThresholdsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
sourcesYes
warningsYes
debtToEquityNo
leverageRatioNo
lastFilingDateNo
complianceStatusYes
interestCoverageNo
nextFilingDeadlineNo

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds transparency by noting it uses real-time data and returns compliance status, metrics, and SEC filing references. No contradictions or missing behavioral warnings.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is four sentences plus keywords, which is slightly verbose. It front-loads the CFO role and key action, but includes some redundant or keyword-style content that could be trimmed. Adequate but not highly concise.

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 an output schema exists (implied by context signals), the description adequately covers inputs (ticker, thresholds) and outputs (compliance status, metrics, SEC refs). It also provides use case context. A slightly more complete description of behavioral nuances would improve it.

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 67%, including descriptions for 'async' and 'ticker'. The description adds value by clarifying 'optional covenant thresholds' for 'maxDebtToEquity' and 'minInterestCoverage', which are not fully explained in the schema. This helps agents understand parameter purpose.

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 monitors bond covenant compliance by analyzing specific ratios (debt-to-equity, debt-to-EBITDA, interest coverage) and outputs compliance status, metrics, and SEC references. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'bond_covenant_esg_compliance_checker' and 'syndicated_loan_covenant_breach_alert'.

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 mentions it's 'ideal for proactive debt management and regulatory compliance tracking,' implying usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it, leaving the agent without clear decision 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