Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

positioning_strategist

Read-only

Stratège de positionnement — Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CMO). Returns a structured, audited deliverable. Reference case: Gapup Hub vs Tableau/Pigment/Looker — Angle de différenciation + 5 piliers messaging + battle plan. 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.
marketYes
companyYes
productYes
aspirationsNo
competitorsYes
customerPainsYes
currentWeaknessesNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed16 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / aspirations / maxLength
      Added value: +500
    • addedInput schema / properties / company / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "name": {
+    "maxLength": 100,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "sector": {
+    "maxLength": 100,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / company / required
      Added value: +[
+  "name",
+  "sector"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / competitors / items
      Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "name": {
+      "maxLength": 100,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "positioning": {
+      "maxLength": 300,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "strongPoints": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "maxItems": 5,
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "targetSegment": {
+      "maxLength": 200,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "weakPoints": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "maxItems": 5,
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "name",
+    "positioning"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / competitors / maxItems
      Added value: +8
    • addedInput schema / properties / competitors / minItems
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / currentWeaknesses / items
      Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 300,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / currentWeaknesses / maxItems
      Added value: +5
    • addedInput schema / properties / customerPains / items
      Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 300,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / customerPains / maxItems
      Added value: +8
    • addedInput schema / properties / customerPains / minItems
      Added value: +2
    • addedInput schema / properties / market / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "geography": {
+    "maxLength": 100,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maturity": {
+    "enum": [
+      "emerging",
+      "growing",
+      "mature",
+      "declining"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "targetSegment": {
+    "maxLength": 300,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / market / required
      Added value: +[
+  "targetSegment"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / product / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "currentTagline": {
+    "maxLength": 200,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "mainFeatures": {
+    "items": {
+      "maxLength": 200,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "maxItems": 8,
+    "minItems": 2,
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  "name": {
+    "maxLength": 100,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / product / required
      Added value: +[
+  "name",
+  "mainFeatures"
+]
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "company",
+  "product",
+  "market",
+  "competitors",
+  "customerPains"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects, and the description implies a read-only operation ('returns a structured, audited deliverable'). The description adds context about the output being audited, but does not disclose other behaviors like auth needs or potential delays. With annotations already covering safety, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

The description is short (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the title and target audience. However, the use of French may slightly impede quick comprehension for English-speaking agents. Overall, it is efficient with no wasted words.

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 complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format beyond a reference case, omits behavior of the async parameter, and fails to describe the relationship between inputs and the deliverable. More detail is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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 low (13%), yet the description adds no meaning for any parameter. It only vaguely says 'send the documented case fields', which does not explain the purpose or structure of the 8 parameters, many of which are nested objects with required fields. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 clearly states the tool is a positioning strategist targeted at C-suite/CMO, and lists specific outputs (angle de différenciation, 5 piliers messaging, battle plan) with a reference case. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pricing_strategist or market_entry_strategist, and is in French which may reduce clarity for English agents.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context on prerequisites or limitations. The only usage direction is that inputs are validated server-side, which is minimal.

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

All mcp-knowledge 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

C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially in competitive intelligence, ESG, and risk assessment. For example, there are multiple tools for competitor analysis (competitive_deep_dive, competitor_intel, competitor_moves, etc.) with unclear boundaries. Agents would struggle to select the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are a mix of English and French, and follow no consistent pattern. Some use snake_case (e.g., abm_architect, action_plan_esg), while others are verb-focused (e.g., content_catalog, fx_rate). The lack of a uniform naming convention makes it hard for agents to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 271 tools, the server is excessively large. Even for a broad knowledge domain, this number of tools makes discovery and selection inefficient. Typical coherent servers have 3-15 tools; this has an order of magnitude more, indicating poor scoping.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many domains (compliance, finance, marketing, HR, etc.), but the coverage is uneven due to redundancy. Key areas have multiple overlapping tools, while some sub-domains may still have gaps. Overall, the surface is broad but not well-curated.

Resources