Skip to main content
Glama

Two Minute Toolkit

Two Minute Porter's Five Forces

create_five_forces
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a slide-deck-quality Porter's five forces diagram laid out as the classic cross: competitive rivalry in the centre, threat of new entrants above, threat of substitutes below, bargaining power of suppliers on the left and of buyers on the right, with arrows pointing in at the centre. Each box has a header band with the force's name, an optional rating pill (very low, low, medium, high, very high; green, amber or red) and up to 5 short bullets of evidence; an optional conclusion line sits underneath. Choose it to assess an industry's attractiveness or competitive pressure for a strategy, market-entry, investment or case-interview slide. Use a Harvey ball matrix to score several options against criteria, a hub and spoke for items around a centre with no fixed meaning, and a mind map for open-ended brainstorming. All five forces are required (an empty object {} is fine); infer sensible ratings and bullets from the industry rather than asking. Limits: 5 bullets per force of about 4–10 words, a conclusion of one sentence. 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.Five forces analysis
widthNoChart width in pixels (640–2400). Omit it (recommended) and the chart sizes itself to its content with comfortable margins, between 880 and 1280px wide. PNG output renders at 2x.
buyersYesRight box: how much leverage customers have to push prices down or demand more. Default name "Bargaining power of buyers". E.g. { "rating": "high", "bullets": ["Riders compare fares in seconds"] }.
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).
paletteNoHex colours. Every header band takes the FIRST palette colour unless a force sets its own colour; rating pills always use green, amber and red. Default: indigo, sky, emerald, amber, red, gray.
rivalryYesCentre box: how intensely existing competitors fight on price, product, marketing and service. Default name "Competitive rivalry". E.g. { "rating": "high", "bullets": ["Price war among the top two players","Low switching costs for riders"] }.
suppliersYesLeft box: how much leverage suppliers (inputs, labour, platforms) have over prices and terms. Default name "Bargaining power of suppliers". E.g. { "rating": "high", "bullets": ["Drivers multi-home across apps"] }.
conclusionNoOptional one-line takeaway shown in a muted band under the cross, e.g. "Overall: moderately attractive; buyer power is the main threat". Wraps to 2 lines. Omit for none.
newEntrantsYesTop box: how easily new competitors can enter the industry (capital needs, scale, brand, regulation). Default name "Threat of new entrants". E.g. { "rating": "high", "bullets": ["Network effects favour incumbents"] }.
showRatingsNoShow each force's rating pill. Default true; false hides every rating without deleting it.
substitutesYesBottom box: how easily customers can meet the same need another way. Default name "Threat of substitutes". E.g. { "rating": "high", "bullets": ["Public transit and micromobility"] }.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and closed-world, and the description adds operational traits beyond them: infer ratings and bullets rather than asking, an empty object is valid input, the user can adjust via an Edit link, and inline chat images usually cannot be saved so the image link must always be given. That last point is genuinely non-obvious and valuable, though return-value framing stays thin given there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and layout, then routing, then limits, then the image-link rule — a sensible order. It is long for a single description and repeats the bullet and conclusion limits that also appear in the text just above and in the schema, but no sentence is truly wasted.

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?

Covers an 11-parameter nested-object tool completely: layout, all five required forces, inference policy, evidence-length limits, the conclusion line, and how to deliver the result to the user. With no output schema, the instruction to always return the image link fills the one gap that would otherwise cause a silent failure.

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 every field, including rating enums, bullet caps and the 640–2400 width range. The description restates a few of those (5 bullets of 4–10 words, one-sentence conclusion, ratings vocabulary) but adds almost no field meaning the schema does not already carry, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 resource (generate a Porter's five forces diagram) and describes the exact layout: rivalry centre, entrants above, substitutes below, suppliers left, buyers right, arrows inward. This is concrete enough that an agent can distinguish it from create_swot or create_quadrant_matrix without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to choose it (industry attractiveness or competitive pressure for strategy, market-entry, investment or case-interview slides) and names three sibling alternatives with the conditions that select them: Harvey matrix for scoring options, hub and spoke for unordered items, mind map for open-ended brainstorming.

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