Skip to main content
Glama

Two Minute Toolkit

Two Minute Fishbone Diagram

create_fishbone
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a slide-deck-quality fishbone diagram (Ishikawa or cause-and-effect diagram) for root-cause analysis: a horizontal spine ending in a head box that holds the problem, with 1–8 category bones angled off it, alternating above and below, each named in a coloured pill and carrying up to 6 causes, and each cause up to 3 sub-causes. Standard category sets fill in unnamed categories: 6M for manufacturing (People, Machine, Method, Material, Measurement, Environment), 8P for services and 4S for the service industry. Choose it for quality, Lean and Six Sigma (DMAIC Analyze) work, healthcare quality improvement, incident reviews and any "why does this keep happening" slide; use an issue tree for a MECE logic or KPI breakdown, a mind map for an open brainstorm, a SIPOC to scope a process, and the lab fishbone (create_lab_fishbone) for lab value skeletons such as BMP or CBC, which is a different thing. Infer 4–6 categories and 2–4 causes each from the problem rather than asking. Limits: 1–8 categories, 6 causes per category of about 2–7 words, 3 sub-causes per cause. Infer missing details rather than asking; the user can adjust the chart in the builder through the Edit link. ALWAYS give the user the image link: inline chat images usually cannot be saved, but the link renders the exact chart on demand and can be pasted into a slide or Markdown.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNoHeading shown top-left of the chart at 22px bold. Every chart has one title row; an empty string hides it.Root cause analysis
widthNoChart width in pixels (640–2400, default 1280, which suits a 16:9 slide). PNG output renders at 2x. Height is computed from the content: bones grow as long as their causes need.
creditNoShows a small "twominutetoolkit.com" credit under the chart, inside the card. Set false to leave it off (for example when the user asks for no branding).
presetNoStandard category set whose names are used for categories that have no `name`, by position: "6m" (manufacturing: People, Machine, Method, Material, Measurement, Environment), "8p" (services: Product, Price, Place, Promotion, People, Process, Physical evidence, Productivity), "4s" (service industry: Surroundings, Suppliers, Systems, Skills) or "custom" (unnamed categories show "Category 1", "Category 2"…). Default "6m". A category's own `name` always wins.6m
paletteNoHex colours applied in order to the category bones that have no colour of their own (bone, cause lines and name pill). Pass the user's brand colours here when they name them. Default: indigo, sky, emerald, amber, red, gray.
problemYesThe effect being analysed, shown in the head box at the right end of the spine, e.g. "Late medication administration on Ward 4B". Phrase it as a problem, not a cause. Wraps to 5 lines in the box; about 3–10 words reads best.
categoriesYesThe category bones (1–8; 4–6 is typical), drawn left to right in pairs: the first above the spine, the second below it, the third above, and so on. More than 8 are dropped with a warning. E.g. [{ "name": "People", "causes": [{ "text": "Agency staff unfamiliar with the ward", "sub": ["No induction checklist"] }] }].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnly/idempotent/closed-world; the description adds substantial context beyond that: it instructs the agent to infer 4–6 categories and 2–4 causes instead of interrogating the user, notes overflow behaviour (more than 8 categories dropped with a warning), discloses the builder Edit link, and — importantly — instructs the agent to always surface the image link because inline chat images cannot be saved. That last point is critical delivery behaviour found nowhere in structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the alternative-routing sentence is dense but efficient. It loses a point for a long run-on middle section and for repeating limits (1–8 categories, 6 causes, 3 sub-causes) that the schema already states verbatim.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description fills that gap by explaining what the deliverable is and how to hand it to the user (the link renders the exact chart and can be pasted into a slide or Markdown). Combined with inference defaults, overflow behaviour and branding control, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and deliver the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents presets, palettes, limits and string shorthands; the description largely restates those same limits (1–8 categories, 6 causes of 2–7 words, 3 sub-causes). Its only genuine addition is the population strategy — infer 4–6 categories and 2–4 causes rather than asking — which is modest value on top of an already complete schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact ('Generate a slide-deck-quality fishbone diagram (Ishikawa or cause-and-effect)') and then describes the concrete layout: head box, horizontal spine, 1–8 alternating category bones, causes and sub-causes. It explicitly contrasts itself with create_lab_fishbone, issue tree, mind map and SIPOC, so an agent can distinguish it from every near neighbour.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Names the exact domains where it applies (quality, Lean/Six Sigma DMAIC Analyze, healthcare QI, incident reviews, 'why does this keep happening' slides) and pairs each alternative with the condition that selects it — issue tree for MECE/KPI breakdown, mind map for open brainstorm, SIPOC for process scoping, create_lab_fishbone for BMP/CBC skeletons. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources