Skip to main content
Glama

gapup-mcp

by io.github.getgapup

cap_table_strategist

Read-only

Stratège du cap table — Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (FUNDRAISING). Returns a structured, audited deliverable. Reference case: Aleph AI Series B — modèle dilution multi-rounds + simulations secondaires + hygiène equity · 5 scenarios. 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
plannedRoundsYes
currentCapTableYes
founderObjectivesYes

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, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds that inputs are server-side validated and returns a structured, audited deliverable, which is useful. However, it does not disclose operational aspects like latency, result polling (async), or the exact deliverable structure.

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 relatively brief, but includes promotional language ('Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise') and a reference case that may be useful context. The reference case illustrates output scope but feels somewhat tangential. Overall, it is not optimally front-loaded or concise.

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?

Given the complex nested schema, low parameter coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what constitutes a valid case, what the deliverable will contain beyond being 'structured and audited', or how this tool fits with closely related siblings. Users would need to infer too much.

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 17% (only the async parameter is described), and the description does not compensate. It refers to 'documented case fields' without explaining any of the nested input objects (company, currentCapTable, plannedRounds, founderObjectives). Parameter names help somewhat, but the description adds no value.

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 positions the tool as a cap table strategist for fundraising and mentions a structured, audited deliverable with reference to dilution modeling and secondary simulations. However, it lacks a direct action verb (e.g., 'generates', 'analyzes') and does not explicitly differentiate itself from other strategy/finance tools.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like capital_strategy or term_sheet_negotiation. The only usage hint is the FUNDRAISING tag and a vague instruction to send documented case fields, which is not sufficient.

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