franchisedata-mcp

Weekly Operating Review Store Scorecard

get_weekly_scorecard

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a restaurant store's standardized 6-Question Weekly Operating Review Scorecard to diagnose funnel conversion, drivers, competitor moves, and sales root causes.

Instructions

PAID ($0.010). Retrieve the standardized 6-Question Weekly Operating Review Scorecard for a restaurant location covering Funnel conversion, Drivers, Competitor Moves, Fact vs Inference, 1 Recommended Action, and Holdout design. Atomically debits $0.010. Requires 'fc_live_...' API key. If 'week' is omitted, defaults to latest evaluated week. Returns 404 if no scorecard found, 402 if balance insufficient. WHEN TO USE: Use for weekly operational store diagnostics, executive unit reviews, and root-cause sales analysis. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use for general location searches (use 'franchise_search_near') or brand FDD data (use 'get_fdd_item19'). ALTERNATIVES: Use 'recommend_local_action' for isolated action extraction; use 'get_local_share_of_choice' for raw delivery panel telemetry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`week`	No	Optional week identifier in ISO format (e.g. '2026-W36'). If omitted, defaults to the most recent week.
`store_id`	Yes	Target store ID or store number (e.g. 'loc_mcdonalds_1001')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`week`	Yes	Evaluated week identifier
`store_id`	Yes	Store identifier
`balance_remaining_usd`	Yes	Remaining API credit balance in USD
`question_1_what_changed`	Yes	Funnel conversion and traffic deltas
`question_3_competitor_moves`	No	Local competitor pricing and promotional shifts
`question_2_why_did_it_change`	No	Driver diagnostics and decomposition
`question_4_fact_vs_inference`	No	Separation of observed facts vs testable inferences
`question_5_recommended_action`	Yes	Single controllable tactical intervention
`question_6_holdout_evaluation`	No	Empirical holdout evaluation from prior week

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.1Oct 6, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / store_id / description

Previous value: -"Store ID"New value: +"Target store ID or store number (e.g. 'loc_mcdonalds_1001')"

changedInput schema / properties / week / description

Previous value: -"Optional week identifier (e.g. '2026-W36')"New value: +"Optional week identifier in ISO format (e.g. '2026-W36'). If omitted, defaults to the most recent week."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "balance_remaining_usd": {
+      "description": "Remaining API credit balance in USD",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "question_1_what_changed": {
+      "description": "Funnel conversion and traffic deltas",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "question_2_why_did_it_change": {
+      "description": "Driver diagnostics and decomposition",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "question_3_competitor_moves": {
+      "description": "Local competitor pricing and promotional shifts",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "question_4_fact_vs_inference": {
+      "description": "Separation of observed facts vs testable inferences",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "question_5_recommended_action": {
+      "description": "Single controllable tactical intervention",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "question_6_holdout_evaluation": {
+      "description": "Empirical holdout evaluation from prior week",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "store_id": {
+      "description": "Store identifier",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "week": {
+      "description": "Evaluated week identifier",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "store_id",
+    "week",
+    "question_1_what_changed",
+    "question_5_recommended_action",
+    "balance_remaining_usd"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.0.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), and the description goes well beyond them with the price ($0.010 atomic debit), the required 'fc_live_...' API key, the default-week fallback, and the specific failure modes (404 no scorecard, 402 insufficient balance). This is exactly the billing/auth/error context annotations cannot express.

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-loads the price, then purpose, constraints, and finally the routing sections, so the most decision-relevant facts come first. Slightly repetitive in stating the price twice ('PAID ($0.010)' and 'Atomically debits $0.010'), but overall every block earns its place.

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 values need not be described; the description instead supplies cost, auth requirements, default behavior, error codes, and full sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this paid tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters already carry their own documentation. The description restates the week default ('latest evaluated week') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what 'week' and 'store_id' already document, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a precisely scoped resource (the standardized 6-Question Weekly Operating Review Scorecard for a restaurant location), even enumerating the six sections it contains. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling (e.g. get_fdd_item19, franchise_search_near) 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 (weekly operational store diagnostics, executive unit reviews, root-cause sales analysis) and WHEN NOT TO USE clauses that name the correct alternatives ('franchise_search_near' for location search, 'get_fdd_item19' for brand FDD). An ALTERNATIVES line further routes 'recommend_local_action' and 'get_local_share_of_choice' to adjacent use cases.

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

Deploy Server