[Alex (Alexkuva)]

What does this PR change?

The README speaks Kaiten's vocabulary, and its examples run on Kaiten Sushi Shop, the demo dataset task quickstart seeds:

• "shape plans and entitlements" becomes "shape Licenses and entitlements", and the tools table's "Catalog & plans" becomes "Catalog & Licenses".
• The examples move off Acme, Growth and seats, which no Kaiten dataset has:
  • "Move Ninja Osaka to Premium and renew it for a year" → kaiten_update_instance(instance="ninja-osaka-prod", plan="premium", extend_license_days=365);
  • "Give Starter 20 more menu items, without touching existing customers" → kaiten_save_license(new_version_of="starter", grants={"menu-items": 25}).
• A sentence under the tools table says what the plan and license arguments are: a License family, whose current version an instance moves to, and an exact License version.
• Two argument descriptions, the customer's domain and the instance's display name, and the views.py docstring drop Acme the same way.

Why?

Kaiten's vocabulary says License, never plan, and the docs' running example is Kaiten Sushi Shop. A reader who follows the README on a seeded stack can now find every name it uses.

The plan argument itself is left as it is. Renaming it would change the tools' input schema, so it is a decision for the tools' design, not for this PR.

Testing

• Both new examples were run on a fresh task quickstart of kaiten main through an MCP client:
  • kaiten_update_instance answers updated: ninja-osaka-prod on premium-v2, with its License end pushed out;
  • kaiten_save_license answers created: starter-v2, with Starter's grants copied, menu-items at 25, and no instance on it.
• kaiten_get_usage(min_percent=80) and kaiten_evaluate_flags(instance="sakura-tokyo-prod"), unchanged, were run too. The second explains the off dashboard: its rule reads orderCount, which the evaluation context lacks.
• uv run ruff check ., uv run ruff format --check ., uv run pytest: 56 passed.
• uv run pytest -m e2e against the same stack: 5 passed.

Checklist

• I have read CONTRIBUTING.md.
• Every commit in this PR includes a valid DCO Signed-off-by line.
• I have the right to submit all material in this PR.
• I have not included secrets or confidential data.
• I have updated tests where appropriate.
• I have updated documentation where appropriate.
• I have preserved required third-party licenses and attributions.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code · ✅ Tested and approved by Alex (@Alexkuva), maintainer

[Alex (Alexkuva)]

Replaced by #8: the same commit, taken again on top of main. Updating this branch from main added a merge commit without a sign-off, which fails DCO and only a history rewrite could remove.