gapup-mcp

action_plan_esg

Read-only

Plan d'action ESG — Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (SUSTAINABILITY). Returns a structured, audited deliverable. Reference case: TechCorp SAS — Plan ESG 36 mois (500 FTE, €60M CA, score 54→76/100). Inputs are validated server-side — send the documented case fields.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`async`	No	If 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.
`focus`	No
`company`	Yes
`horizon`	Yes		36 mois
`ambitions`	Yes
`targetLabels`	No
`currentScores`	No
`availableResources`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedJun 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that inputs are validated server-side and provides a reference case, but doesn't disclose return format (beyond 'structured deliverable'), pagination, or authentication needs. It doesn't contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is three sentences, but includes marketing fluff ('Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise') and repeats the title. The reference case and validation note are useful. It could be more concise by removing the tagline.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has 8 parameters including nested objects, and no output schema. The description offers only a vague 'structured, audited deliverable' and a single reference case, without specifying required fields, how to use the async parameter, or what the deliverable contains. This is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 13% (only the async parameter has a description). The description says 'send the documented case fields' but does not explain any specific parameters, such as company, ambitions, availableResources, or horizon. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description starts with the title 'Plan d\'action ESG' and states it returns a structured, audited deliverable, with a reference case of an ESG plan. However, it lacks a clear verb like 'create' or 'generate' and doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling ESG tools. The purpose is inferable but vague.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sustainability_report or esg_audit_multi. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The only context is a marketing tagline and validation note.

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

All gapup-mcp tools Inspect

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

C2.4/5.0

Disambiguation1/5

Over 50 tools share the identical template 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise' with similar French descriptions and reference cases, making their boundaries indistinguishable. Clusters like competitor_intel, competitive_deep_dive, competitor_moves, competitor_profiles, competitor_pricing_radar, competitor_pricing_scrape, and competitor_recommendations heavily overlap in purpose.

Naming Consistency1/5

Names are chaotic: mix of French and English, snake_case and camelCase, verb_noun, noun, and adjective forms with no uniform pattern. Examples like 'bp_narratif', 'content_enrichment', 'ai_governance_full_report_async', and 'job_result' show no coherent naming convention.

Tool Count1/5

271 tools is far beyond any reasonable MCP server scope, creating an overwhelming selection burden for agents. This count vastly exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and makes navigation impractical.

Completeness2/5

While the server covers many business domains, it lacks lifecycle operations (e.g., no update/delete tools for the deliverables it generates) and the input specifications are vague ('documented case fields' without documentation), creating functional dead ends. The sheer breadth does not compensate for these gaps.