Skip to main content
Glama

AgentPlaybooks

by ai.agentplaybooks

Create task graph

create_task_graph
DestructiveIdempotent

Create a hierarchical task plan in one call: a parent plan memory plus a child node per subtask. Upserts by key, so repeating the same plan_key overwrites the previous graph. Requires memory:write or full permission. Use write_memory for a single node, update_task_status to move a node through pending/running/completed, and get_memory_tree to inspect the graph. Pass playbook_id as the UUID or GUID of the playbook this call should target.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoTags for the plan
tasksYesList of subtasks to create
plan_keyYesKey for the root plan memory
playbook_idYesUUID or GUID of the target playbook
plan_summaryYesHigh-level summary of the entire plan

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses the idempotent upsert behavior (repeating plan_key overwrites) and the destructive implication, consistent with the destructiveHint annotation. It also states the permission requirement, adding context beyond 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?

Concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage alternatives, then behavioral notes and permission. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, behavior, permissions, and targeting. Nested task structure is well documented in schema; description adds the key semantic of overwriting by plan_key.

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 per-parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal param-specific insight beyond what schema provides (e.g., playbook_id as UUID/GUID is already in schema). Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool creates a hierarchical task plan with a parent plan and child nodes per subtask. It distinguishes from siblings like write_memory (single node) and update_task_status (moving nodes) by focusing on bulk creation.

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 guidance names alternative tools: write_memory for single nodes, update_task_status for status changes, get_memory_tree for inspection. Also mentions upsert/overwrite behavior and the required permission (memory:write/full).

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

All AgentPlaybooks toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct entity and action (e.g., delete_memory vs delete_skill vs delete_run), and even similar operations like read_memory vs search_memory vs get_memory_context have clearly differentiated purposes. The descriptions are detailed and explicitly cross-reference other tools to avoid confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*, read_*, etc.), with plurals used uniformly for list operations (list_playbooks, list_runs, list_secrets). No mixed conventions or ambiguous verbs; the naming is highly predictable and systematic.

Tool Count4/5

With 48 tools, the server covers a broad but coherent set of domains (playbooks, personas, skills, memory, canvas, runs, secrets, MCP servers, and discovery). While this exceeds the typical 3-15 range, each tool serves a distinct and necessary function within the comprehensive playbook management scope, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface provides complete CRUD and lifecycle coverage for every entity type: playbooks, personas, skills (including versioning and rollback), memory (including hierarchical tasks and tiering), canvas (with locking and patching), runs, secrets (including rotation and usage), and MCP servers. Additionally, find_tools covers discovery for federated tools, leaving no apparent dead ends.

Resources