supply-chain-mcp-server

get_supply_chain_risk

Analyze supply chain risks for a product by identifying concentration, critical dependencies, and alternative sources. Choose basic or detailed analysis.

Instructions

Analysiert Lieferketten-Risiken für ein Produkt.

Args: product: Produkt oder Branche (z.B. "halbleiter", "seltene erden", "solar", "batterien") analysis_depth: "basic" oder "detailed"

Returns: Risikoanalyse: Konzentration, kritische Abhängigkeiten, Alternativquellen

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "product": "<product>"
    },
    "name": "get_supply_chain_risk"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`product`	Yes
`analysis_depth`	No		basic

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond basic operation, such as permissions, rate limits, or side effects.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It efficiently lists parameters and return values, though the Args and Returns formatting adds structure.

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?

Without an output schema, the description outlines return components (concentration, critical dependencies, alternative sources). This is sufficient for a 2-parameter tool with no enums.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining 'product' as 'Produkt oder Branche' with examples and 'analysis_depth' options as 'basic' or 'detailed'. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 analyzes supply chain risks for a product, with specific parameters and return values. It is distinct from sibling tools focused on trade statistics and suppliers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server