Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

pricing_strategist

Read-only

Stratège de pricing — Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CMO). Returns a structured, audited deliverable. Reference case: Vercel Pricing 2026 — 4 tiers + usage metering · 3 scenarios pricing chiffrés · ARPU +28% target. 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
competitorsYes
currentPricingYes
valuePropositionYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed11 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / company / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "arrEur": {
+    "minimum": 0,
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "currentArpu": {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "customerCount": {
+    "minimum": 0,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  "name": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "sector": {
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / company / required
      Added value: +[
+  "name",
+  "sector"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / competitors / items
      Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "anchorPriceEur": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "notes": {
+      "maxLength": 300,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "pricingApproach": {
+      "enum": [
+        "cost-based",
+        "value-based",
+        "competitive-based",
+        "freemium",
+        "usage-based",
+        "tier-based",
+        "hybrid"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "name",
+    "pricingApproach"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / competitors / maxItems
      Added value: +8
    • addedInput schema / properties / competitors / minItems
      Added value: +2
    • addedInput schema / properties / currentPricing / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "approach": {
+    "enum": [
+      "cost-based",
+      "value-based",
+      "competitive-based",
+      "freemium",
+      "usage-based",
+      "tier-based",
+      "hybrid"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "currentTiers": {
+    "items": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "maxItems": 8,
+    "minItems": 1,
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  "painPoints": {
+    "maxLength": 500,
+    "minLength": 20,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / currentPricing / required
      Added value: +[
+  "approach",
+  "currentTiers",
+  "painPoints"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / focus / maxLength
      Added value: +400
    • addedInput schema / properties / valueProposition / maxLength
      Added value: +500
    • addedInput schema / properties / valueProposition / minLength
      Added value: +20
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "company",
+  "currentPricing",
+  "competitors",
+  "valueProposition"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
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 returns a deliverable, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as execution time, permissions, or handling of insufficient data. It does not 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is three sentences long, with some fluff in the first sentence but quickly gets to the point. It is reasonably concise, though the first sentence could be more direct.

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 no output schema and nests complex parameters. The description does not specify the return format, contents of the deliverable, or how to handle the async option. Given the complexity, the description leaves significant gaps for an AI 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 low (17%), and the description does not explain any input fields. It merely says 'send the documented case fields,' which is insufficient for an AI agent to understand the structure and meaning of complex nested parameters like 'company' and 'competitors'.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool is a pricing strategist that returns a structured, audited deliverable, with a concrete reference case (Vercel Pricing 2026). It differentiates from sibling pricing tools like 'pricing_in_deal' and 'competitor_pricing_radar' by focusing on generating comprehensive pricing scenarios.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for creating pricing strategy deliverables but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions server-side validation and a reference case, but lacks clear guidance on exclusions or when not to use it.

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