Create a one-page business model: enter any two or more of nine blocks, and the template guides you to complete the rest.
One-page business model (9 blocks). Provide any 2+ blocks; the template guides completion of the rest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Venture / product name | |
| problem | No | ||
| channels | No | ||
| solution | No | ||
| key_metrics | No | ||
| cost_structure | No | ||
| revenue_streams | No | ||
| unfair_advantage | No | ||
| customer_segments | No | ||
| unique_value_proposition | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: the tool fills in blocks the caller omits. It says nothing about what the output looks like, whether generated content is inferred rather than derived from input, or how it behaves if all nine blocks are supplied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with no filler, and the constraint that matters for invocation ('provide any 2+ blocks') arrives immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 10-parameter generative tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is far too thin — the shape of the returned canvas, the handling of omitted blocks, and per-block formatting are all unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 10% — only 'name' is documented — but the nine remaining property names are standard Lean Canvas block terms that are largely self-explanatory to a knowledgeable agent. The description still omits format expectations (prose vs bullets, length) and does not reconcile 'provide any 2+ blocks' with the schema requiring only 'name'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the resource precisely ('One-page business model (9 blocks)') and implies a generate/complete action, so the agent knows this produces a lean canvas. It does not state an explicit verb and never names the sibling frameworks it must be distinguished from, so differentiation is only implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Provide any 2+ blocks; the template guides completion of the rest' gives a concrete input precondition, which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to pick this over swot_analysis, marketing_mix, or decision_matrix, so the selection decision is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.