Run discrete-event business simulations over months or years to evaluate cash, revenue, CAC, churn, and runway for scenario planning and decision testing.
Runs a discrete-event business simulation over time (months/years) evaluating cash, revenue, CAC, churn, and runway.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Scenario Run | |
| project_id | Yes | Project ID | |
| random_seed | No | ||
| duration_days | No | ||
| marketing_budget | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 never says whether the run is persisted, whether it is deterministic given random_seed, how expensive/long the computation is, or how errors surface – the key behavioral facts for a simulation tool.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the scope/duration framing comes before the metric list. It is efficient, though a flat single sentence gives no structural separation between what it does and what it returns.
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 five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 80% of parameters undocumented, the description should explain the seed's determinism role, the budget's influence, and whether results are stored. Listing the evaluated metrics partially covers return semantics but leaves the operational picture incomplete.
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 only 20% (effectively just 'Project ID'), yet the description mentions no parameters at all. 'months/years' hints at duration_days and the cash/CAC metrics hint at marketing_budget, but random_seed (a determinism control) and name are entirely unaddressed.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Runs a discrete-event business simulation') plus the time horizon and the metrics it evaluates, which makes it obviously distinct from any sibling tool. It does not explicitly name a sibling or a boundary case, so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
Use is only implied by the word 'simulation' – there is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., a configured project), and no guidance on when not to use it. An agent must infer the trigger condition entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.