Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

tariff_arbitrage_finder

Read-onlyIdempotent

As a COO, identify tariff reclassification opportunities to reduce import costs. Analyzes product HS codes against WTO TFA and USA Trade Online data to find lower-duty classifications. Inputs: product description, current HS code, country of origin, and annual import volume. Outputs: potential duty savings, alternative HS codes, and compliance considerations.

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.
annualVolumeNo
currentHsCodeYes
countryOfOriginYes
currentDutyRateNo
productDescriptionYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
sourcesNo
warningsNo
opportunitiesNo

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the analysis approach (against WTO TFA and USA Trade Online data) and outputs (duty savings, alternative HS codes, compliance considerations). This adds value beyond annotations 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?

The description is three sentences, each sentence serves a purpose: role/purpose, method, inputs/outputs. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the primary goal. Efficient and 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 params, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the core purpose and inputs/outputs. However, it omits details about async capability and the output schema, which is provided separately. It is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 param described). The description lists inputs ('product description, current HS code, country of origin, and annual import volume') but does not explain patterns, constraints, or optional params like currentDutyRate and async. This provides minimal added meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'identify tariff reclassification opportunities to reduce import costs.' It specifies the user role (COO) and the data sources (WTO TFA, USA Trade Online). The name and description differentiate it from sibling tools like tariff_impact_simulator by focusing on reclassification.

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 when a COO wants to reduce import costs via tariff reclassification, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tariff_impact_simulator) or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on prerequisites or context.

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