Skip to main content
Glama

gapup-mcp

by io.github.getgapup

competitor_pricing_radar

Read-only

Radar pricing concurrents — Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CMO). Returns a structured, audited deliverable. Answers: How do my competitors' pricing plans and monthly prices compare to mine? · Which competitor plan undercuts or out-features my equivalent tier? Reference case: Notion — pricing vs ClickUp, Asana, Coda. 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
competitorsYes
selfCompanyYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) cover basic safety and scope. The description adds that it 'Returns a structured, audited deliverable' and 'Inputs are validated server-side', providing some operational context. No contradiction with annotations. However, it does not disclose rate limits, failure modes, or what 'audited' concretely entails.

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 moderately concise but includes marketing fluff: 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CMO)' adds no operational value. The core questions are front-loaded, but the reference case could be shortened. It is not as lean as it could be, but remains understandable.

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 nested objects, no output schema, and annotations. The description explains the analytical questions but omits details about the 'async' parameter, the meaning of 'focus', and the deliverable's structure beyond 'structured, audited'. For a complex tool, this is insufficient for an agent to fully understand input/output behavior.

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 only 25% (only 'async' has a description). The description's 'send the documented case fields' is vague and does not explain the purpose of 'focus', the structure of 'competitors'/'selfCompany', or when to use 'async'. Parameter names are partially self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal 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?

The description explicitly states the tool answers 'How do my competitors' pricing plans and monthly prices compare to mine?' and 'Which competitor plan undercuts or out-features my equivalent tier?', making the purpose clear. The opening phrase 'Radar pricing concurrents' is awkward but the subsequent questions compensate. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like competitor_pricing_scrape by focusing on comparative analysis rather than raw scraping.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as competitive_deep_dive, competitor_intel, or competitor_pricing_scrape. The reference case (Notion vs ClickUp, Asana, Coda) is illustrative but does not provide selection criteria or exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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