Skip to main content
Glama

get_stakeholder_map

Map stakeholders by company stage with APAC-specific dynamics like chaebol, nemawashi, and family-business structures.

Instructions

Stakeholder navigation map by company stage. APAC-specific notes (chaebol, nemawashi, family-business dynamics).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
company_stageYes

Implementation Reference

  • Data schema/definition for STAKEHOLDER_MAP — the data lookup table containing stakeholder maps for early_startup, growth_stage, mid_market, and enterprise stages, with APAC-specific notes about nemawashi, chaebol, and family-business dynamics.
    const STAKEHOLDER_MAP: Record<string, any> = {
      early_startup: { decision_maker: "Founder / Managing Director", influencer: "Co-founder or Head of Function", apac_note: "In Korea/Japan, founder may defer to family elder/board.", cycle: "1-3 months", deal_size: "$3K-30K" },
      growth_stage: { decision_maker: "CEO + functional VP", influencer: "Department head", apac_note: "Korea: chaebol-affiliated startups still defer to parent. Japan: ringi system.", cycle: "3-6 months", deal_size: "$15K-150K" },
      mid_market: { decision_maker: "C-suite + procurement + legal", influencer: "Multiple department heads", apac_note: "India: state government affairs may matter. Indonesia: family business dynamics.", cycle: "6-12 months", deal_size: "$50K-500K" },
      enterprise: { decision_maker: "C-suite + board approval + procurement + legal + IT + sometimes regulator alignment", influencer: "Project lead + multiple stakeholders + external consultants", apac_note: "Japan: nemawashi (groundwork) + ringi (formal proposal). Korea chaebol: 12-18 months. India: complex multi-state procurement.", cycle: "9-24 months", deal_size: "$200K-5M" }
    };
  • src/main.ts:177-177 (registration)
    Tool registration for 'get_stakeholder_map' — declares the tool name, description, and input schema (company_stage enum from STAKEHOLDER_MAP keys).
    { name: "get_stakeholder_map", description: "Stakeholder navigation map by company stage. APAC-specific notes (chaebol, nemawashi, family-business dynamics).", inputSchema: { type: "object", properties: { company_stage: { type: "string", enum: Object.keys(STAKEHOLDER_MAP) } }, required: ["company_stage"] } },
  • Handler implementation for 'get_stakeholder_map' — extracts company_stage argument, looks up STAKEHOLDER_MAP[stage], and returns the data as JSON with module name and stage metadata.
    case "get_stakeholder_map": { const stage = args?.company_stage as string; const d = STAKEHOLDER_MAP[stage]; if (!d) throw new Error(`Unknown stage: ${stage}`); return { content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify({ module: "APAC Stakeholder Map", company_stage: stage, ...d }, null, 2) }] }; }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It mentions APAC-specific notes but does not disclose output format, side effects, or any constraints (e.g., data freshness, permissions). Minimal behavioral context beyond function.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded purpose. Could be more structured (e.g., separate parameter description) but remains efficient for a simple tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and only one enum parameter, the description provides enough to understand the tool's purpose. However, lacking details on what the map contains, how it's structured, and support for other stages beyond the APAC note leaves gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, and description only says 'by company stage' without explaining the enum values or their meanings. The parameter is not explicitly described, so the description adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states it provides a stakeholder navigation map filtered by company stage, with APAC-specific notes. Distinguishes from siblings which cover compliance, country briefs, etc. However, 'navigation map' is somewhat vague but sufficient.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_full_apac_pack or get_etiquette_guide. Only implies APAC context via the second sentence, but does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/closermethod/apac-compliance-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server