Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

talent_litigation_exposure

Read-onlyIdempotent

Estimates litigation exposure risk for CHROs by analyzing past employee lawsuits, settlement amounts, and industry benchmarks. Inputs include company location, industry code, and employee count range. Returns exposure score, average settlement amounts, lawsuit frequency trends, and risk factors. Ideal for legal risk assessment, HR strategy planning, and board-level reporting. 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.
industry_codeYesNAICS industry code (e.g., '541511' for IT services)
employee_countNoCurrent number of employees
lookback_yearsNoNumber of years to analyze
company_locationYesState or region where company operates (e.g., 'CA', 'New York')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
sourcesYes
warningsYes
avg_settlementNoAverage settlement amount in USD
exposure_scoreYesNormalized risk score (0-100)
historical_trendNo
top_risk_factorsNo
lawsuit_frequencyNoLawsuits per 1000 employees per year
industry_benchmarkNoIndustry average exposure score

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
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 behavioral details about async usage and output for risk-aware invocation, providing additional value without contradiction.

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?

Four concise sentences front-load the purpose, list inputs and outputs, state ideal uses, and include a crucial async tip. No wasted 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?

The description covers purpose, inputs, outputs, and async behavior. An output schema exists (not shown but indicated), so return values are addressed. It is complete enough for a moderately complex tool with good annotations.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context for the 'async' parameter but does not provide significant new meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 estimates litigation exposure risk for CHROs using specific inputs and outputs. It names the target user and use cases, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 clear use cases ('legal risk assessment, HR strategy planning, board-level reporting') but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternative tools. The context is sufficient for most decision-making.

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