Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

procurement_six_sigma_waste_hunter

Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyzes procurement waste for COOs using Six Sigma DMAIC framework and EU TED tender data. Identifies non-value-added activities, overprocessing, and inefficiencies in procurement workflows. Inputs include procurement category, time period, and organizational unit. Outputs waste classification, cost impact estimates, and process improvement recommendations. — pass async:true REQUIRED to avoid x402 timeout.

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.
time_periodYesTime period for analysis (e.g., '2023-01-01/2023-12-31')
six_sigma_toolNoDMAIC
include_ted_dataNo
organizational_unitNoSpecific business unit or department (e.g., 'EMEA', 'Global Operations')
procurement_categoryYesSpecific procurement category to analyze (e.g., 'IT hardware', 'facilities')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
sourcesNo
warningsNo
ted_data_coverageNo
cost_impact_estimateNo
waste_classificationNo
process_improvement_recommendationsNo

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
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 value by revealing the timeout risk ('x402 timeout') and requiring async:true, as well as detailing outputs like waste classification and recommendations. No contradictions 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 relatively concise, with three sentences covering purpose, inputs, outputs, and a critical usage note. It is front-loaded with the main action. Minor improvement could be made by listing inputs more succinctly, but overall it's well-structured.

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, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, key inputs, outputs, and the async requirement. It does not explain the six_sigma_tool parameter or the EU TED data integration in depth, but the existence of an output schema reduces the burden. Still, some details are missing for full completeness.

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 67% (above 50% threshold), so baseline is 3. The description names three of six parameters (procurement_category, time_period, organizational_unit) but does not elaborate on others like async, six_sigma_tool, or include_ted_data. It adds some context but not enough to raise the score.

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: analyzing procurement waste for COOs using Six Sigma DMAIC and EU TED tender data. It specifies the verb ('analyzes') and the resource ('procurement waste') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on Six Sigma waste analysis.

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 for COOs analyzing procurement waste with Six Sigma methods, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'procurement_spend_optim' or 'procurement_okr_esg_aligner'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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