plith

rigor_plan

Read-onlyIdempotent

Before executing a complex task, get a structured workflow plan with per-step cost estimates. Classifies your task, selects the optimal framework sequence, and returns the full plan without executing anything. The response's allowed_modes tells you whether this plan is eligible for direct execution. Free — no credits charged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`task_type`	No	Optional hint to bypass automatic classification. Passing it also removes the slowest classification tiers from the critical path, so send it whenever you know the shape. Multi-step deliverable types: solution_design, requirements_analysis, code_implementation, code_review, bug_fix, root_cause_analysis, incident_response, deployment_execution, competitive_scan, financial_analysis, research_task, documentation, governance_change, compliance_audit, data_security_assessment, performance_optimization, user_story_definition, implementation_prompt_generation. Atomic single-call types, which auto-select direct execution: tag, score, rerank, extract_entities, parse_query, quick_research, quick_classification, quick_extraction, quick_scoring. Call GET /api/rigor/task-types for the full vocabulary with each type's shape.
`preferences`	No	Optional workflow preferences.
`task_description`	Yes	Natural language description of the task. Be specific — include what you want produced, constraints, and context. Example: 'Design a caching layer for our API gateway with Redis integration.'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`plan`	No
`generated_title`	No

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: the plan is not executed, the response carries an allowed_modes eligibility flag, and the operation is free with no credits charged. There is no contradiction with the 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?

Three short sentences carry the full message: trigger and goal, internal mechanics, and response/cost behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded at the start of the description.

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?

The description, combined with a rich input schema and safety annotations, covers purpose, side-effect profile, cost, and eligibility flag. An output schema exists, so detailed return-value documentation is not required in the description. The only minor gap is not explicitly referencing how the plan connects to rigor_execute, but the schema and context make that reasonably clear.

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% and the input schema already provides very detailed parameter documentation, especially for task_type and preferences. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'get a structured workflow plan with per-step cost estimates,' and clearly states what the tool does—classifies the task, selects a framework sequence, and returns the plan without executing. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling rigor_execute by explicitly noting that nothing is executed.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The opening phrase 'Before executing a complex task' gives clear contextual guidance for when to use the tool, and 'without executing anything' contrasts it with execution tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like rigor_execute or state when not to use planning, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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

All plith tools Inspect

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, grouped by functionality (cost, dedup, guardrails, pitfalls, quality, rigor). Descriptions clearly differentiate within groups, so an agent can reliably select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent pattern of lowercase with underscores, using category prefix (burnrate_, dedupq_, guardrail_, etc.) followed by a descriptive verb or noun. No naming mix-ups.

Tool Count5/5

15 tools cover multiple distinct capabilities (cost management, deduplication, guardrails, pitfalls, quality, workflows) without being excessive. Each tool has a clear role, and the count is appropriate for the server's scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core workflows well, but there are minor gaps: no tool to delete/update guardrail policies, no explicit qualitygate rule management, and no workflow cancellation tool. Also, 'qualitygate_trends' is referenced but not provided as a tool. Overall, agents can work around these gaps.

Resources

Need Help?