Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

sustainability_report

Read-only

Rapport de durabilité — Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (SUSTAINABILITY). Returns a structured, audited deliverable. Reference case: GreenLoop Solutions — rapport durabilité B-Corp 2025 (95 FTE, €18M CA). 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
pillarsYes
stakeholdersYes
targetLabelsNo
existingLabelsNo
audienceProfileYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed12 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / audienceProfile / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "investors",
+  "B2B-clients",
+  "talents",
+  "regulators",
+  "general-public",
+  "mixed"
+]
    • 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"
+  },
+  "mission": {
+    "maxLength": 400,
+    "minLength": 20,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "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",
+  "mission",
+  "foundedYear",
+  "country"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / existingLabels / items
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "B-Corp",
+    "EcoVadis Bronze",
+    "EcoVadis Silver",
+    "EcoVadis Gold",
+    "EcoVadis Platinum",
+    "Lucie 26000",
+    "ISO 14001",
+    "ISO 26000",
+    "BSR"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / focus / maxLength
      Added value: +500
    • addedInput schema / properties / pillars / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "environmental": {
+    "properties": {
+      "actions": {
+        "items": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "maxItems": 8,
+        "minItems": 1,
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "ambitions": {
+        "minLength": 10,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "kpis": {
+        "minLength": 10,
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "kpis",
+      "actions",
+      "ambitions"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "governance": {
+    "properties": {
+      "actions": {
+        "items": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "maxItems": 8,
+        "minItems": 1,
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "ambitions": {
+        "minLength": 10,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "kpis": {
+        "minLength": 10,
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "kpis",
+      "actions",
+      "ambitions"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "social": {
+    "properties": {
+      "actions": {
+        "items": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "maxItems": 8,
+        "minItems": 1,
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "ambitions": {
+        "minLength": 10,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "kpis": {
+        "minLength": 10,
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "kpis",
+      "actions",
+      "ambitions"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / pillars / required
      Added value: +[
+  "environmental",
+  "social",
+  "governance"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / stakeholders / items
      Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "engagement": {
+      "maxLength": 500,
+      "minLength": 10,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "enum": [
+        "clients",
+        "employés",
+        "investisseurs",
+        "fournisseurs",
+        "communauté",
+        "régulateurs"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "type",
+    "engagement"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / stakeholders / maxItems
      Added value: +8
    • addedInput schema / properties / stakeholders / minItems
      Added value: +2
    • addedInput schema / properties / targetLabels / items
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "B-Corp",
+    "EcoVadis Bronze",
+    "EcoVadis Silver",
+    "EcoVadis Gold",
+    "EcoVadis Platinum",
+    "Lucie 26000",
+    "ISO 14001",
+    "ISO 26000",
+    "BSR"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "company",
+  "pillars",
+  "stakeholders",
+  "audienceProfile"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that inputs are validated server-side, which is a behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose other traits like idempotency, response size, or potential delays, but given annotations cover the core safety, the score is adequate.

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 short (3 sentences), but includes extraneous marketing phrases and a reference case that do not aid agent understanding. The core message is clear but could be more concise without losing informativeness.

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 of nested required parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not describe the return format, what constitutes a 'structured, audited deliverable,' or how the output relates to inputs. The reference case provides a partial example but lacks comprehensive coverage.

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 only 13%, yet the description fails to explain any parameter meanings or usage. It merely instructs to 'send the documented case fields' without elaborating on company, pillars, stakeholders, or audienceProfile. This severely hinders correct parameter value selection.

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 returns a structured, audited sustainability report, identifying the verb (return) and resource (report). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like sustainability_reporting_pilot, and the inclusion of a reference case and marketing language adds minor ambiguity.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as sustainability_reporting_pilot. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are given, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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