StackFast FractWin Expert Brain

GrowthOS Owner-Facing Report

growthos_owner_facing_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Render the canonical GrowthOS scorecard into a sendable owner-facing report with web, email-review-ready, PDF-ready outputs, and optional CogentCast site-review receipt composition. No autonomous send.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sender`	No
`prospect`	Yes
`cogentcast_site_review`	No	Optional CogentCast site-review request or precomputed receipt. GrowthOS consumes this receipt instead of recreating website review logic.
`include_cogentcast_site_review`	No	Fetch a CogentCast dry-run site-review receipt for the supplied website_url and compose it into step 3.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`tool`	Yes
`public_name`	No
`no_autonomous_outbound`	No
`review_required_before_send`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedJun 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / cogentcast_site_review

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional CogentCast site-review request or precomputed receipt. GrowthOS consumes this receipt instead of recreating website review logic.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / include_cogentcast_site_review

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Fetch a CogentCast dry-run site-review receipt for the supplied website_url and compose it into step 3.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

AddedJun 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a critical behavioral boundary—'No autonomous send'—and clarifies the nature of outputs without contradicting the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose and output formats are front-loaded, followed by the important 'No autonomous send' constraint and the optional integration in a compact, readable way.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover the operation's safety, the description provides the essential context: rendering the scorecard, available output formats, and optional CogentCast behavior. A slight gap is that the required prospect object and the 'step 3' reference in the schema are not explained, but the overall invocation intent is clear.

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 50%; the two CogentCast-related parameters have helpful descriptions in the schema, and the tool description reinforces their purpose. However, the sender and prospect object parameters are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving their expected structure to be inferred from the tool name and context.

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 states a specific verb ('Render'), a clear resource ('canonical GrowthOS scorecard'), and a distinct deliverable ('sendable owner-facing report') with concrete output formats (web, email-review-ready, PDF-ready). It also names the optional CogentCast receipt composition, which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like growthos_scorecard or cogentcast_production_run.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly implies when to use the tool: when a GrowthOS scorecard needs to be turned into an owner-facing, sendable report. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer this tool is for rendering/reporting rather than sending or producing the underlying scorecard.

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

All StackFast FractWin Expert Brain tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?