Create a 4P marketing plan covering product, price, place, promotion, target customer, and pitch line to clarify a product offer and go-to-market strategy.
4P plan: Product, Price, Place (channels), Promotion, plus the pitch line.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| place | No | ||
| price | No | ||
| product | Yes | ||
| promotion | No | ||
| product_offer | No | ||
| target_customer | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not state whether the tool creates or persists anything, whether the inputs are merely validated or used to generate output, or what the caller gets back — meaningful gaps for a tool named marketing_mix with no safety hints attached.
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?
The single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, which is good. But its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification — the phrase reads more like a label than a usable instruction, so the economy doesn't fully earn its place.
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?
With 6 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description would need to do substantial work. Instead it covers only four of the six inputs and gives no indication of what the tool returns or how the inputs are consumed, leaving the agent materially under-informed.
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 description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and it only partially does. It maps Product, Price, Place, and Promotion to the 4Ps, but leaves product_offer and target_customer entirely unexplained and doesn't clarify that the 'pitch line' corresponds to product_offer, nor what format any field expects.
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 framework and enumerates its components (Product, Price, Place, Promotion, pitch line), which tells an agent roughly what domain this tool covers. However, it never supplies a verb — it doesn't say whether the tool builds, evaluates, or stores a 4P plan — and it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from framework siblings like swot_analysis or lean_canvas beyond the label.
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?
There is no guidance on when to reach for marketing_mix versus swot_analysis, lean_canvas, or decision_matrix, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer from the framework name alone that this is the marketing-planning option.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.