Skip to main content
Glama
outis-co

franchisedata-mcp

by outis-co
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Statutory FDD Item 19 Unit Economics

get_fdd_item19
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve FDD Item 19 financial disclosures for franchise underwriting, including average unit volume, revenue tiers, royalty and marketing fees, and capital requirements.

Instructions

PAID ($0.010). Retrieve regulatory Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) Item 19 financial disclosures: Average Unit Volume (AUV), quartile revenue tiers, royalty fee %, marketing fund %, and initial capital investment requirements. Atomically debits $0.010. Requires 'fc_live_...' API key. Returns 402 if balance insufficient. WHEN TO USE: Use for franchise investment underwriting, brand unit-level financial benchmarking, and royalty fee comparisons. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use for store-level weekly performance (use 'get_weekly_scorecard') or individual store pricing (use 'get_menu_pricing'). ALTERNATIVES: Use 'get_weekly_scorecard' for operational store scorecards; use 'search_brands' to discover brand catalog.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brandYesCanonical brand slug (e.g. 'chickfila', 'mcdonalds', 'wendys', 'culvers', 'popeyes')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brandYesBrand slug queried
fdd_item19NoFDD Item 19 regulatory financial disclosures
balance_remaining_usdYesRemaining API credit balance in USD

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / brand / description
      Previous value: -"Brand slug (e.g. 'mcdonalds', 'chickfila', 'tacobell')"New value: +"Canonical brand slug (e.g. 'chickfila', 'mcdonalds', 'wendys', 'culvers', 'popeyes')"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "balance_remaining_usd": {
+      "description": "Remaining API credit balance in USD",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "brand": {
+      "description": "Brand slug queried",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "fdd_item19": {
+      "description": "FDD Item 19 regulatory financial disclosures",
+      "properties": {
+        "ad_fund_pct": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "auv_mean": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "auv_median": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "brand_id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "min_liquid_capital": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "royalty_pct": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "total_investment_max": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "total_investment_min": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "year": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "brand",
+    "balance_remaining_usd"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the description carries real weight and delivers: it discloses the $0.010 charge, atomic debit behavior, the required 'fc_live_' API key, and the 402 response when balance is insufficient. These are operationally critical facts absent from the structured fields.

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 cost and purpose, then cleanly sectioned by use/not-use/alternatives. Minor redundancy: the $0.010 charge is stated twice ('PAID ($0.010)' and 'Atomically debits $0.010'), which costs a little tightness but not clarity.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description already covers pricing, auth prerequisites, failure mode, and routing guidance. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and budget for it.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'brand' parameter is fully documented in the schema with examples, so the description adds no further semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (regulatory FDD Item 19 financial disclosures), then enumerates the exact contents (AUV, quartile revenue tiers, royalty %, marketing fund %, capital requirements). This is enough to distinguish it from any sibling without opening a 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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, and ALTERNATIVES sections name the substitute siblings directly: get_weekly_scorecard for store ops, get_menu_pricing for store pricing, search_brands for discovery. Nothing is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools