Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

dual_use_export_risk_mapper

Read-onlyIdempotent

As a COO, quickly assess export compliance risks for components in your supply chain. This tool analyzes bills of materials (BOMs) against EU dual-use export control lists and ICAO/IMO restricted items data. Input a list of part numbers, descriptions, or HS codes to receive a risk assessment with actionable insights. Output includes risk levels, applicable regulations, and source references for audit trails.

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.
bomItemsYes
includeSourcesNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
resultsNo
sourcesNo
warningsNo

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds context about data sources and output, but omits the async parameter behavior for large BOMs, which is relevant for tool invocation.

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?

Description is three sentences, front-loading persona and purpose, followed by method and output. No unnecessary details, every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (nested array, optional boolean params, async support), the description covers the main purpose but misses nested bomItems structure details and async usage guidance. Output schema exists so return values are not needed.

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 low (33%). The description explains bomItems as a list of parts with codes/descriptions, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not cover includeSources or async (async described in schema), missing full compensation.

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 export compliance risks for components using bills of materials against EU dual-use and ICAO/IMO data. The verb 'assess' and specific regulatory lists differentiate it from general compliance tools.

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 implies usage by a COO for BOM analysis against specific lists, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., dual_use_tech_diversion_monitor) and does not mention exclusions.

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