Skip to main content
Glama
tenkai2018

ai-business-system-advisor-mcp

by tenkai2018

Recommend Next Step

recommend_next_step
Read-onlyIdempotent

Recommends a practical next step for your business workflow by analyzing goal, complexity, readiness, risk, and preferences to guide your AI or automation journey.

Instructions

Recommends a practical next-step category based on business goal, workflow complexity, implementation readiness, risk level, preferences, and missing information.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNoAny additional context the user wants considered in the review.
offerNoCore product, service, package, or outcome the business sells.
aiIdeaNoAI or automation idea the user is considering.
teamSizeNoApproximate team size and key roles involved in the workflow.
timelineNoDesired timeline for review, documentation, pilot, or implementation.
userGoalNoGoal the user wants the next step to support.
readinessNoSimplified readiness level if already known.
riskLevelNoEstimated risk level or uncertainty for the workflow.
goal90DaysNoDesired business or workflow outcome over the next 90 days.
preferenceNoUser's preferred support style.
constraintsNoKnown constraints such as budget, team capacity, tools, timeline, compliance needs, or data access.
currentGoalNoCurrent business goal the user wants the review to support.
businessTypeNoType of business, such as ecommerce, SaaS, consulting, agency, local service, or solo business.
revenueModelNoHow the business earns revenue, such as projects, retainers, subscriptions, services, or products.
riskConcernsNoConcerns related to customer trust, brand reputation, legal exposure, sensitive data, or quality control.
currentProblemNoMain business or workflow problem the user wants to solve.
targetCustomerNoPrimary customer segment or buyer the business serves.
currentWorkflowNoHow the relevant workflow currently works, including manual steps, tools, handoffs, and review points.
wantsDoneForYouNoWhether the user prefers implementation support rather than self-guided work.
wantsSelfGuidedNoWhether the user prefers self-guided resources or templates.
problemComplexityNoEstimated complexity of the business or workflow problem.
hasExistingAutomationNoWhether the business already has automation or AI workflows in place.
implementationReadinessNoHow ready the business appears for implementation.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonYesReason this next-step category fits the supplied context.
confidenceYesConfidence level based on the clarity and completeness of the provided business context.
readinessLevelYesEstimated readiness level for the recommended path.
recommendedPathYesRecommended next-step category.
suggestedActionYesPractical action the user can take next.
alternativePathsYesOther reasonable next-step categories the user could consider.
missingInformationYesInformation the user should provide to improve routing confidence.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.10

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool considers missing information and recommends a category, but does not disclose details like the list of categories or how inputs are used. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and inputs. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, and every part of the sentence adds value.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given 23 parameters and an output schema, the description is concise but lacks explanation of what a 'next-step category' means or how the recommendation is structured. The output schema likely covers return values, but the description could provide more context for effective use.

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 the schema already documents all 23 parameters individually. The description only mentions parameter categories generically and does not add specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Recommends') and resource ('practical next-step category'), and lists the factors considered. It distinguishes from siblings like 'recommend_first_workflow' by focusing on category based on multiple dimensions.

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 implies usage for deciding next steps but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or context alternatives to sibling tools like 'recommend_first_workflow' or 'analyze_business_context' are provided.

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