ai-business-system-advisor-mcp

by tenkai2018

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Generate Mini Report

generate_mini_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a concise mini business system review including snapshot, bottlenecks, opportunities, risks, recommended workflow, and next step to assess AI opportunities and risks.

Instructions

Generates a public-safe mini business system review with snapshot, bottlenecks, opportunities, risks, first workflow, next step, missing information, and confidence.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "generate_mini_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No	Any additional context the user wants considered in the review.
`offer`	No	Core product, service, package, or outcome the business sells.
`risks`	No	Known trust, control, customer, or implementation risks to include.
`aiIdea`	No	AI or automation idea the user is considering.
`nextStep`	No	Existing next-step recommendation to include or refine.
`teamSize`	No	Approximate team size and key roles involved in the workflow.
`confidence`	No	Optional confidence level to carry into the report.
`goal90Days`	No	Desired business or workflow outcome over the next 90 days.
`bottlenecks`	No	Known bottlenecks to include in the mini review.
`constraints`	No	Known constraints such as budget, team capacity, tools, timeline, compliance needs, or data access.
`currentGoal`	No	Current business goal the user wants the review to support.
`businessType`	No	Type of business, such as ecommerce, SaaS, consulting, agency, local service, or solo business.
`revenueModel`	No	How the business earns revenue, such as projects, retainers, subscriptions, services, or products.
`riskConcerns`	No	Concerns related to customer trust, brand reputation, legal exposure, sensitive data, or quality control.
`opportunities`	No	Known AI opportunities to include in the mini review.
`currentProblem`	No	Main business or workflow problem the user wants to solve.
`targetCustomer`	No	Primary customer segment or buyer the business serves.
`currentWorkflow`	No	How the relevant workflow currently works, including manual steps, tools, handoffs, and review points.
`businessSnapshot`	No	Existing business snapshot to include or refine in the mini review.
`preferredNextStep`	No	User preference for self-guided, diagnostic, documentation, build, or review support.
`recommendedWorkflow`	No	Existing first workflow recommendation to include or refine.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confidence`	Yes	Confidence level based on the clarity and completeness of the provided business context.
`disclaimer`	Yes	Public safety note explaining the limits of the review.
`shortSummary`	Yes	Brief summary of the review result.
`reportMarkdown`	Yes	Public-safe mini review formatted as markdown.
`recommendedAction`	Yes	Most practical next action based on the supplied context.
`missingInformation`	Yes	Information the user should provide to improve report confidence.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.10Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds 'public-safe' but does not disclose further behavioral traits like performance, limitations, or output handling. Acceptable but minimal added value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no extraneous information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 21 parameters and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It lists main report components but could better clarify the relationship to sibling tools and the structured output format.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond summarizing the output, so no extra value.

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?

The description clearly states it generates a 'public-safe mini business system review' and lists specific components (snapshot, bottlenecks, opportunities, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implicitly suggests this tool is for a consolidated review, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings like identify_bottlenecks or recommend_first_workflow. No 'when-not-to-use' or alternative tool references.

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

Deploy Server