Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

partnership_synergies

Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify and rank strategic partnership opportunities for a company. Returns 5-12 high-fit partnership targets, each scored on revenue lift, time-to-impact, integration complexity and regulatory risk, with a rationale and a recommended first-step outreach playbook. When to use this tool: the user wants business-development or alliance ideas, or M&A target screening before deeper due diligence. Inputs: the user's own company and the strategic axis to unlock through partnership (e.g. enter a new market via distribution, add AI infrastructure without rebuilding). Delivered by Antoine, the AI CSO of the Gapup portfolio.

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.
focusNo
constraintsNo
selfCompanyYes
strategicAxisYesWhat strategic axis to unlock through partnership (e.g. 'enter US market via distribution', 'leverage AI infra without rebuild')
currentPartnershipsNoExisting alliances to factor in

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kpisNo3-5 headline KPI bubbles
sourcesNo
recommendationsNoPrioritised next steps
executiveSummaryYesBoard-ready partnership opportunity overview
partnershipTargetsYes5-12 ranked partnership targets

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds value by detailing the output structure (scored targets with rationale and playbook) and confirming no side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 four sentences long, which is efficient. The first two sentences cover purpose and output, the third covers usage, and the fourth covers inputs. While the structure is logical, a more scannable format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability, but it remains concise without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description covers the main purpose, usage, and key inputs. It omits details on optional parameters and does not reference the output schema (though that exists separately). Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 50%. The description clarifies the two required parameters (selfCompany and strategicAxis) with examples like 'enter US market via distribution.' However, it does not explain optional parameters such as focus, constraints, or currentPartnerships, leaving gaps in understanding for those inputs.

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: 'Identify and rank strategic partnership opportunities for a company.' It specifies the output (5-12 targets scored on multiple dimensions) and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning 'M&A target screening before deeper due diligence' and 'business-development or alliance ideas,' setting it apart from related tools like market_entry_strategist or ma_deal_screener.

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 explicit usage context: 'use this tool when the user wants business-development or alliance ideas, or M&A target screening.' While it does not list when not to use or explicitly name alternatives, the scenarios are clearly defined and help an agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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