Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

rse_policy_builder

Read-only

Architecte de politique RSE — Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (SUSTAINABILITY). Returns a structured, audited deliverable. Reference case: TechCorp SAS — Politique RSE 2025-2028 (500 FTE, €60M CA, SaaS B2B France). 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
valuesYes
companyYes
ambitionsYes
targetLabelsNo
currentInitiativesNo
targetStakeholdersYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed15 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / ambitions / maxLength
      Added value: +800
    • addedInput schema / properties / ambitions / minLength
      Added value: +20
    • addedInput schema / properties / company / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "country": {
+    "maxLength": 80,
+    "minLength": 2,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "foundedYear": {
+    "maximum": 2100,
+    "minimum": 1800,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  "fte": {
+    "minimum": 1,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  "name": {
+    "maxLength": 120,
+    "minLength": 2,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "revenueEur": {
+    "minimum": 0,
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "sector": {
+    "maxLength": 160,
+    "minLength": 2,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / company / required
      Added value: +[
+  "name",
+  "sector",
+  "fte",
+  "revenueEur",
+  "country"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / currentInitiatives / items
      Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "minLength": 5,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / currentInitiatives / maxItems
      Added value: +10
    • addedInput schema / properties / focus / maxLength
      Added value: +500
    • addedInput schema / properties / targetLabels / items
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "B-Corp",
+    "EcoVadis Bronze",
+    "EcoVadis Silver",
+    "EcoVadis Gold",
+    "EcoVadis Platinum",
+    "Lucie 26000",
+    "ISO 14001",
+    "ISO 26000",
+    "Entreprise à mission"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / targetStakeholders / items
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "clients",
+    "employés",
+    "investisseurs",
+    "fournisseurs",
+    "communauté",
+    "régulateurs"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / targetStakeholders / maxItems
      Added value: +6
    • addedInput schema / properties / targetStakeholders / minItems
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / values / items
      Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 100,
+  "minLength": 3,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / values / maxItems
      Added value: +10
    • addedInput schema / properties / values / minItems
      Added value: +2
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "company",
+  "values",
+  "ambitions",
+  "targetStakeholders"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that inputs are validated server-side and returns a deliverable. It does not discuss async behavior (present in schema) or more details about the return format. No contradiction with 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 and conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded with the title and purpose. Could slightly expand on parameter guidance without losing conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits details on how to construct the company object, what the deliverable looks like, and how to handle async. The reference case offers an example but is insufficient for full understanding.

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 13%, and the description does not document individual parameters. The phrase 'send the documented case fields' is vague. Required fields like company, values, ambitions, targetStakeholders are not elaborated, leaving the agent without guidance beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool builds a RSE policy (Sustainability) and returns a structured deliverable. The title and reference case add clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like action_plan_esg or sustainability_report, though the policy-building focus is distinct.

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 use for building a C-suite sustainability policy but does not specify when to use it versus alternatives. No when-not usage or sibling comparison is provided. The mention of 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise' gives context but not explicit guidelines.

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