Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

talent_legal_dashboard

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generates a real-time legal risk dashboard for CHROs, covering contracts, intellectual property, and labor law compliance. Inputs include jurisdiction, employee count, and risk thresholds; outputs include risk scores, actionable alerts, and source citations. Ideal for proactive legal risk management and compliance monitoring. Pass async:true to avoid 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.
includeIPNo
jurisdictionYes
employeeCountYes
riskThresholdNo
includeLaborLawNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
alertsNo
statusYes
sourcesNo
warningsNo
riskScoreNo
lastUpdatedNo

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by noting the tool is 'real-time,' warns about potential timeouts via async, and describes output types (risk scores, alerts, citations). 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise (3 sentences + async tip), well-structured with the primary action first, followed by inputs/outputs, ideal use case, and a practical note. No unnecessary words.

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 has 6 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, target user (CHROs), key inputs, and output types without needing to replicate schema details. The async note adds practical completeness. Minor omission: no mention of the boolean parameters' default values.

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 only 17% (only async documented). The description groups parameters as 'jurisdiction, employee count, and risk thresholds' and implies includeIP/includeLaborLaw through the coverage areas (contracts, IP, labor law), but does not explain each parameter's meaning, defaults, or constraints. Partial compensation but insufficient for low coverage.

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 generates a 'real-time legal risk dashboard for CHROs' covering contracts, IP, and labor law compliance. It includes specific inputs (jurisdiction, employee count, risk thresholds) and outputs (risk scores, alerts, citations), differentiating it from narrower sibling tools like talent_contract_risk_mapper or talent_litigation_exposure.

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 is 'ideal for proactive legal risk management and compliance monitoring' and provides an async usage tip to avoid timeout. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, leaving room for ambiguity.

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