Skip to main content
Glama

gapup-mcp

by io.github.getgapup

ai_governance_pilot

Read-only

Pilotage de gouvernance IA — Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (RISK). Returns a structured, audited deliverable. Reference case: TalentScope SAS — scoring IA candidats RH (EU AI Act Annex III §4, high-risk). Inputs are validated server-side — send the documented case fields.

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.
focusNo
companyYes
aiUseCasesYes
targetFrameworksYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent. It adds minor context (server-side validation, audited deliverable) but does not disclose other behavior such as async processing, rate limits, or what 'audited' entails beyond the schema's async parameter.

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?

Three sentences, but the phrase 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (RISK)' is cryptic and wastes the agent's attention. The description is not overly long, but not every sentence earns its place.

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?

With nested objects, no output schema, and only 20% schema coverage, the description leaves major gaps: the nature of the deliverable, how inputs map to output, and how this relates to other AI governance tools. It is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 description coverage is only 20% (only the async parameter is described). The description says 'send the documented case fields' but fails to enumerate or explain company, aiUseCases, targetFrameworks, or focus. This does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states it 'Returns a structured, audited deliverable' for AI governance pilotage, but the verb is implicit and the exact nature of the deliverable is vague. It mentions a reference case but does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like ai_governance_full_report_async.

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. The reference case (TalentScope SAS, EU AI Act high-risk) implies a context, but there are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, and no mention of sibling governance tools.

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

All gapup-mcp 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

C2.4/5.0
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.

Resources