AI Business System Advisor
REMOTE · MCP.PRODXSOLUTION.COM · 2 COMPONENTS
Find the safest first AI workflow before investing in AI agents or automation.
Available components
−1 this week
80 80 Trust /100
Last scanned (20 hours ago)
Scores higher than 81% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 4 Nov 2026.
Category AI and Machine Learning
Trust breakdown (7 categories)
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security63
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- No authorisation is required to call this server. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS enforcement could not be verified: the plaintext port answered with HTTP 406, which proves neither a plaintext path nor enforcement. View diagnostics → Unverified
- HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability74
- 90% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Partial
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 3212 tokens (~214/item across 15 items; 9 tools + 6 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management97
- Stability observed for 29 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage100
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
- Structured output schemas are declared (100% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 9 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 11 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Changelog
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 4 Nov 26 −1
- Stability: pass → 0.97 functional
- 28 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 25 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 26 Aug 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 25 Aug 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 11 Aug 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 31 Jul 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 30 Jul 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
Diagnostics
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 4 Nov 2026 · Probed https://mcp.prodxsolution.com/ai-business-system-advisor/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=prodxsolution.com | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 26 Sept 2026 | 25 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | cad10bb5738926ac0e2e41a72848540d |
| SANs: prodxsolution.com, mcp.prodxsolution.com, *.mcp.prodxsolution.com | ||||||
| CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US (CA) | CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US | 13 Dec 2023 | 20 Feb 2029 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 7ff31977972c224a76155d13b6d685e3 |
| CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US (CA) | CN=GlobalSign Root CA,OU=Root CA,O=GlobalSign nv-sa,C=BE | 15 Nov 2023 | 28 Jan 2028 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 7fe530bf331343bedd821610493d8a1b |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of mcp.prodxsolution.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | present | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| prodxsolution.com. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication No authorisation required
The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.
| Result | No authorisation required |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 200 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://mcp.prodxsolution.com/ai-business-system-advisor/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://mcp.prodxsolution.com/ai-business-system-advisor/mcp | Inconclusive | 406 |
MCP tools
· 9 exposed
· ~3,115 tokens
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
Tool
Tokens
analyze_business_context Analyze Business Context ~317
Summarizes the supplied business context, including customer, offer, workflow, goals, constraints, readiness signals, missing information, and confidence.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| aiIdea | string | – | AI or automation idea the user is considering. |
| businessType | string | – | Type of business, such as ecommerce, SaaS, consulting, agency, local service, or solo business. |
| constraints | array | – | Known constraints such as budget, team capacity, tools, timeline, compliance needs, or data access. |
| currentGoal | string | – | Current business goal the user wants the review to support. |
| currentProblem | string | – | Main business or workflow problem the user wants to solve. |
| currentWorkflow | string | – | How the relevant workflow currently works, including manual steps, tools, handoffs, and review points. |
| goal90Days | string | – | Desired business or workflow outcome over the next 90 days. |
| notes | string | – | Any additional context the user wants considered in the review. |
| offer | string | – | Core product, service, package, or outcome the business sells. |
| revenueModel | string | – | How the business earns revenue, such as projects, retainers, subscriptions, services, or products. |
| riskConcerns | string | – | Concerns related to customer trust, brand reputation, legal exposure, sensitive data, or quality control. |
| targetCustomer | string | – | Primary customer segment or buyer the business serves. |
| teamSize | string | – | Approximate team size and key roles involved in the workflow. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| businessSnapshot | string | yes | Concise public-safe summary of the business and operating context. |
| confidence | string | yes | Confidence level based on the clarity and completeness of the provided business context. |
| likelyBusinessModel | string | yes | Likely business model inferred from the supplied context. |
| missingInformation | array | yes | Information the user should provide to improve diagnostic confidence. |
| primaryConstraintHypothesis | string | yes | Likely main constraint limiting progress or readiness. |
| readinessSignals | array | yes | Signals that indicate whether the business is ready for AI-assisted workflow design. |
| targetCustomerSummary | string | yes | Short summary of the customer segment or buyer context. |
| valuePromiseHypothesis | string | yes | Hypothesis about the core value promise or outcome the business sells. |
No examples provided.
assess_trust_control_risks Assess Trust And Control Risks ~309
Reviews a proposed AI workflow for human review needs, data boundaries, quality controls, escalation triggers, unsafe automation risks, and confidence.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| aiIdea | string | – | Specific AI or automation idea the user is considering. |
| businessType | string | – | Type of business being reviewed. |
| canAffectBrandTrust | boolean | – | Whether the workflow can affect brand reputation, customer expectations, or public trust. |
| canAffectMoney | boolean | – | Whether the workflow can influence pricing, refunds, payments, scope, or financial decisions. |
| currentControls | string | – | Existing review, approval, QA, escalation, or monitoring controls. |
| currentProblem | string | – | Main business or workflow problem the user wants to solve. |
| currentWorkflow | string | – | Current workflow before AI or automation. |
| customerFacing | boolean | – | Whether the workflow directly affects customers or customer-facing messages. |
| proposedWorkflow | string | – | Proposed workflow design, including what AI would do and what humans would review. |
| requiresExpertJudgment | boolean | – | Whether the workflow needs professional, strategic, legal, financial, HR, or domain judgment. |
| riskConcerns | string | – | Known concerns about customer trust, brand risk, compliance, money, privacy, or quality control. |
| usesSensitiveData | boolean | – | Whether the workflow may use private, regulated, or sensitive business/customer data. |
| workflowIdea | string | – | AI workflow or agent idea to assess for trust and control risk. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| confidence | string | yes | Confidence level based on the clarity and completeness of the provided business context. |
| dataBoundaryWarnings | array | yes | Warnings about sensitive data, privacy, access boundaries, or inappropriate inputs. |
| escalationTriggers | array | yes | Conditions that should escalate to a human owner or expert reviewer. |
| humanReviewRules | array | yes | Rules for when a human must review, approve, or override AI output. |
| missingInformation | array | yes | Information the user should provide to improve risk assessment confidence. |
| notRecommendedActions | array | yes | Actions that should not be automated in the current version. |
| requiredControls | array | yes | Controls needed before the workflow should be piloted or expanded. |
| riskLevel | string | yes | Estimated risk level for the workflow or recommendation. |
| riskSummary | string | yes | Concise public-safe summary of the main trust and control risks. |
No examples provided.
evaluate_ai_opportunities Evaluate AI Opportunities ~160
Evaluates candidate AI workflow ideas for business value, implementation readiness, repeatability, trust/control risk, warnings, and missing information.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| aiIdea | string | – | Specific AI or automation idea the user wants evaluated. |
| businessContext | string | – | Short description of the business, customers, offer, and current operating context. |
| businessType | string | – | Type of business being reviewed. |
| candidateUseCases | array | – | Candidate AI workflow ideas to evaluate. |
| currentProblem | string | – | Main problem the AI opportunities should help solve. |
| currentWorkflow | string | – | Current workflow before AI or automation. |
| riskConcerns | string | – | Concerns about customer trust, brand risk, money, privacy, compliance, or quality control. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| confidence | string | yes | Confidence level based on the clarity and completeness of the provided business context. |
| missingInformation | array | yes | Information the user should provide to improve diagnostic confidence. |
| opportunities | array | yes | Evaluated AI opportunities with value, readiness, risk, and control guidance. |
| recommendedFirstOpportunity | string | – | Best first opportunity to consider based on value, readiness, and risk. |
| warnings | array | yes | Warnings about high-risk, premature, or unsafe automation patterns. |
No examples provided.
export_intake_packet Export Intake Packet ~483
Creates a structured public-safe markdown and JSON intake packet with business context, findings, risks, recommended workflow, missing information, and confidence.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| aiIdea | string | – | AI or automation idea the user is considering. |
| bottleneckSummary | object | – | Structured bottleneck findings from a prior tool result. |
| businessContext | object | – | Structured business context from a prior tool result or user notes. |
| businessType | string | – | Type of business, such as ecommerce, SaaS, consulting, agency, local service, or solo business. |
| constraints | array | – | Known constraints such as budget, team capacity, tools, timeline, compliance needs, or data access. |
| currentGoal | string | – | Current business goal the user wants the review to support. |
| currentProblem | string | – | Main business or workflow problem the user wants to solve. |
| currentWorkflow | string | – | How the relevant workflow currently works, including manual steps, tools, handoffs, and review points. |
| goal90Days | string | – | Desired business or workflow outcome over the next 90 days. |
| notes | string | – | Any additional context the user wants considered in the review. |
| offer | string | – | Core product, service, package, or outcome the business sells. |
| opportunitySummary | object | – | Structured AI opportunity findings from a prior tool result. |
| preferredNextStep | string | – | Preferred next-step category or support style to include in the packet. |
| recommendedNextStep | object | – | Structured next-step recommendation from a prior tool result. |
| recommendedWorkflow | object | – | Structured first workflow recommendation from a prior tool result. |
| revenueModel | string | – | How the business earns revenue, such as projects, retainers, subscriptions, services, or products. |
| riskConcerns | string | – | Concerns related to customer trust, brand reputation, legal exposure, sensitive data, or quality control. |
| riskSummary | object | – | Structured trust and control risk findings from a prior tool result. |
| targetCustomer | string | – | Primary customer segment or buyer the business serves. |
| teamSize | string | – | Approximate team size and key roles involved in the workflow. |
| touchpointMap | object | – | Structured customer touchpoint map from a prior tool result. |
| userNotes | string | – | Additional notes the user wants included in the intake packet. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| confidence | string | yes | Confidence level based on the clarity and completeness of the provided business context. |
| missingInformation | array | yes | Information the user should provide before deeper review or implementation. |
| packetJson | object | yes | Structured intake packet data for handoff or deeper review. |
| packetMarkdown | string | yes | Public-safe intake packet formatted as markdown. |
| recommendedPrivateReview | string | yes | Public-safe recommendation for the next deeper review category. |
No examples provided.
generate_mini_report Generate Mini Report ~466
Generates a public-safe mini business system review with snapshot, bottlenecks, opportunities, risks, first workflow, next step, missing information, and confidence.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| aiIdea | string | – | AI or automation idea the user is considering. |
| bottlenecks | array | – | Known bottlenecks to include in the mini review. |
| businessSnapshot | string | – | Existing business snapshot to include or refine in the mini review. |
| businessType | string | – | Type of business, such as ecommerce, SaaS, consulting, agency, local service, or solo business. |
| confidence | string | – | Optional confidence level to carry into the report. |
| constraints | array | – | Known constraints such as budget, team capacity, tools, timeline, compliance needs, or data access. |
| currentGoal | string | – | Current business goal the user wants the review to support. |
| currentProblem | string | – | Main business or workflow problem the user wants to solve. |
| currentWorkflow | string | – | How the relevant workflow currently works, including manual steps, tools, handoffs, and review points. |
| goal90Days | string | – | Desired business or workflow outcome over the next 90 days. |
| nextStep | string | – | Existing next-step recommendation to include or refine. |
| notes | string | – | Any additional context the user wants considered in the review. |
| offer | string | – | Core product, service, package, or outcome the business sells. |
| opportunities | array | – | Known AI opportunities to include in the mini review. |
| preferredNextStep | string | – | User preference for self-guided, diagnostic, documentation, build, or review support. |
| recommendedWorkflow | string | – | Existing first workflow recommendation to include or refine. |
| revenueModel | string | – | How the business earns revenue, such as projects, retainers, subscriptions, services, or products. |
| riskConcerns | string | – | Concerns related to customer trust, brand reputation, legal exposure, sensitive data, or quality control. |
| risks | array | – | Known trust, control, customer, or implementation risks to include. |
| targetCustomer | string | – | Primary customer segment or buyer the business serves. |
| teamSize | string | – | Approximate team size and key roles involved in the workflow. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| confidence | string | yes | Confidence level based on the clarity and completeness of the provided business context. |
| disclaimer | string | yes | Public safety note explaining the limits of the review. |
| missingInformation | array | yes | Information the user should provide to improve report confidence. |
| recommendedAction | string | yes | Most practical next action based on the supplied context. |
| reportMarkdown | string | yes | Public-safe mini review formatted as markdown. |
| shortSummary | string | yes | Brief summary of the review result. |
No examples provided.
identify_bottlenecks Identify Bottlenecks ~233
Identifies likely revenue, operations, customer experience, and trust/control bottlenecks from the supplied business context and returns a public-safe summary.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| aiIdea | string | – | Optional AI or automation idea the user is considering. |
| businessContext | string | – | Short description of the business model, customers, offer, team, and operating context. |
| businessType | string | – | Type of business being reviewed. |
| currentProblem | string | – | Main problem or bottleneck the user suspects. |
| currentWorkflow | string | – | Current workflow steps, handoffs, tools, and review points. |
| customerComplaints | string | – | Known customer complaints, friction points, refunds, or support issues. |
| metrics | string | – | Known metrics such as response time, conversion, close rate, cycle time, churn, cost, or error rate. |
| riskConcerns | string | – | Concerns about customer trust, brand risk, money, privacy, compliance, or quality control. |
| teamPainPoints | string | – | Internal pain points such as repetitive work, slow handoffs, rework, or unclear ownership. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| bottleneckSummary | string | yes | Concise public-safe summary of the most important bottlenecks. |
| confidence | string | yes | Confidence level based on the clarity and completeness of the provided business context. |
| customerExperienceBottlenecks | array | yes | Likely issues that create customer friction, unclear expectations, slow responses, or inconsistent service. |
| missingInformation | array | yes | Information the user should provide to improve diagnostic confidence. |
| mostLikelyRootCause | string | yes | Most likely underlying cause connecting the visible bottlenecks. |
| operationalBottlenecks | array | yes | Likely issues that slow delivery, increase manual work, create rework, or reduce efficiency. |
| revenueBottlenecks | array | yes | Likely issues that reduce sales, conversion, qualified calls, deal speed, or revenue growth. |
| trustControlBottlenecks | array | yes | Likely gaps in review rules, approvals, escalation triggers, data boundaries, or quality control. |
No examples provided.
map_customer_touchpoints Map Customer Touchpoints ~287
Maps customer-facing workflow stages, trust-sensitive moments, automation-safe areas, human-critical areas, missing information, and confidence.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| aiIdea | string | – | AI or automation idea that may affect customer touchpoints. |
| businessType | string | – | Type of business being reviewed. |
| currentProblem | string | – | Main customer journey or workflow problem the user wants to solve. |
| currentWorkflow | string | – | Current workflow steps, tools, owners, and handoffs. |
| customerJourney | array | – | Known customer journey stages from first contact through retention. |
| deliveryProcess | string | – | How the business delivers the offer or service after onboarding. |
| onboardingProcess | string | – | How new customers are welcomed, scoped, educated, or set up. |
| recoveryProcess | string | – | How complaints, refunds, exceptions, or service recovery are handled. |
| retentionProcess | string | – | How renewals, repeat purchases, referrals, or ongoing customer value are managed. |
| riskConcerns | string | – | Concerns about trust, customer experience, brand reputation, privacy, or quality control. |
| salesProcess | string | – | How leads are qualified, sold, and converted before delivery begins. |
| supportProcess | string | – | How customer questions, issues, tickets, or requests are handled. |
| touchpoints | array | – | Specific customer-facing moments, handoffs, or interactions to review. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| automationSafeAreas | array | yes | Areas that appear suitable for AI assistance or automation with low risk. |
| confidence | string | yes | Confidence level based on the clarity and completeness of the provided business context. |
| humanCriticalAreas | array | yes | Areas where human review or ownership should remain explicit. |
| missingInformation | array | yes | Information the user should provide to improve diagnostic confidence. |
| touchpoints | array | yes | Reviewed customer touchpoints with classification, reason, and suggested control. |
| trustSensitiveMoments | array | yes | Moments where customer trust, expectations, or brand perception may be at risk. |
No examples provided.
recommend_first_workflow Recommend First Workflow ~371
Recommends the safest narrow AI-human workflow to implement first, including roles, review rules, escalation rules, success metrics, and missing information.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| aiIdea | string | – | AI or automation idea the user is considering. |
| bottlenecks | array | – | Known or suspected bottlenecks the first workflow should address. |
| businessType | string | – | Type of business, such as ecommerce, SaaS, consulting, agency, local service, or solo business. |
| constraints | array | – | Known constraints such as budget, team capacity, tools, timeline, compliance needs, or data access. |
| currentGoal | string | – | Current business goal the user wants the review to support. |
| currentProblem | string | – | Main business or workflow problem the user wants to solve. |
| currentWorkflow | string | – | How the relevant workflow currently works, including manual steps, tools, handoffs, and review points. |
| goal90Days | string | – | Desired business or workflow outcome over the next 90 days. |
| notes | string | – | Any additional context the user wants considered in the review. |
| offer | string | – | Core product, service, package, or outcome the business sells. |
| opportunities | array | – | AI opportunities already identified or under consideration. |
| revenueModel | string | – | How the business earns revenue, such as projects, retainers, subscriptions, services, or products. |
| riskConcerns | string | – | Concerns related to customer trust, brand reputation, legal exposure, sensitive data, or quality control. |
| risks | array | – | Known risks or control concerns that should shape the workflow design. |
| targetCustomer | string | – | Primary customer segment or buyer the business serves. |
| teamSize | string | – | Approximate team size and key roles involved in the workflow. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| aiRole | string | yes | What AI should observe, summarize, draft, classify, or prepare. |
| confidence | string | yes | Confidence level based on the clarity and completeness of the provided business context. |
| escalationRule | string | yes | Rule for cases that should escalate to a human owner or expert. |
| expectedOutcome | string | yes | Expected business outcome if the workflow is piloted successfully. |
| firstImplementationScope | string | yes | Smallest practical pilot scope for the first version. |
| humanRole | string | yes | What a human should approve, decide, handle, or monitor. |
| missingInformation | array | yes | Information the user should provide to improve workflow recommendation confidence. |
| recommendedWorkflow | string | yes | Narrow AI-human workflow recommended as the safest first implementation. |
| reviewRule | string | yes | Rule for when human review is required before output or action. |
| successMetrics | array | yes | Practical metrics to evaluate workflow pilot success. |
| whyThisWorkflow | string | yes | Reason this workflow is a practical first candidate based on value, readiness, and risk. |
| workflowCategory | string | yes | Category of workflow, such as sales prep, support triage, QA, reporting, or operations. |
No examples provided.
recommend_next_step Recommend Next Step ~489
Recommends a practical next-step category based on business goal, workflow complexity, implementation readiness, risk level, preferences, and missing information.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| aiIdea | string | – | AI or automation idea the user is considering. |
| businessType | string | – | Type of business, such as ecommerce, SaaS, consulting, agency, local service, or solo business. |
| constraints | array | – | Known constraints such as budget, team capacity, tools, timeline, compliance needs, or data access. |
| currentGoal | string | – | Current business goal the user wants the review to support. |
| currentProblem | string | – | Main business or workflow problem the user wants to solve. |
| currentWorkflow | string | – | How the relevant workflow currently works, including manual steps, tools, handoffs, and review points. |
| goal90Days | string | – | Desired business or workflow outcome over the next 90 days. |
| hasExistingAutomation | boolean | – | Whether the business already has automation or AI workflows in place. |
| implementationReadiness | string | – | How ready the business appears for implementation. |
| notes | string | – | Any additional context the user wants considered in the review. |
| offer | string | – | Core product, service, package, or outcome the business sells. |
| preference | string | – | User's preferred support style. |
| problemComplexity | string | – | Estimated complexity of the business or workflow problem. |
| readiness | string | – | Simplified readiness level if already known. |
| revenueModel | string | – | How the business earns revenue, such as projects, retainers, subscriptions, services, or products. |
| riskConcerns | string | – | Concerns related to customer trust, brand reputation, legal exposure, sensitive data, or quality control. |
| riskLevel | string | – | Estimated risk level or uncertainty for the workflow. |
| targetCustomer | string | – | Primary customer segment or buyer the business serves. |
| teamSize | string | – | Approximate team size and key roles involved in the workflow. |
| timeline | string | – | Desired timeline for review, documentation, pilot, or implementation. |
| userGoal | string | – | Goal the user wants the next step to support. |
| wantsDoneForYou | boolean | – | Whether the user prefers implementation support rather than self-guided work. |
| wantsSelfGuided | boolean | – | Whether the user prefers self-guided resources or templates. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| alternativePaths | array | yes | Other reasonable next-step categories the user could consider. |
| confidence | string | yes | Confidence level based on the clarity and completeness of the provided business context. |
| missingInformation | array | yes | Information the user should provide to improve routing confidence. |
| readinessLevel | string | yes | Estimated readiness level for the recommended path. |
| reason | string | yes | Reason this next-step category fits the supplied context. |
| recommendedPath | string | yes | Recommended next-step category. |
| suggestedAction | string | yes | Practical action the user can take next. |
No examples provided.
Install
How do I install the AI Business System Advisor MCP server?
AI Business System Advisor is a hosted endpoint at https://mcp.prodxsolution.com/ai-business-system-advisor/mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · mcp.prodxsolution.com
# add to Claude Code
claude mcp add --transport http tenkai2018-ai-business-system-advisor-mcp 'https://mcp.prodxsolution.com/ai-business-system-advisor/mcp'
Common questions
What is the AI Business System Advisor MCP server?
AI Business System Advisor is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.tenkai2018/ai-business-system-advisor-mcp. Find the safest first AI workflow before investing in AI agents or automation. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://mcp.prodxsolution.com/ai-business-system-advisor/mcp).
Is the AI Business System Advisor MCP server safe to use?
AI Business System Advisor scores 80 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the AI Business System Advisor MCP server expose?
AI Business System Advisor exposes 9 tools: analyze_business_context, map_customer_touchpoints, identify_bottlenecks, evaluate_ai_opportunities, assess_trust_control_risks, and 4 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 3,115 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the AI Business System Advisor MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to AI Business System Advisor without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the AI Business System Advisor MCP server still maintained?
AI Business System Advisor is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 4 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.