Skip to main content
Glama

rigor_execute

Execute a structured workflow end-to-end. Call rigor_plan first (free) to preview the step sequence and cost estimate before committing credits. Classifies the task, selects the optimal tool sequence, and executes each step with the right LLM model. Returns a complete deliverable — solution designs, competitive analyses, governance documents, and more. Supports SSE streaming for real-time progress, webhook callback, or polling. For atomic work — classification, scoring, ranking, entity extraction, query parsing — set preferences.execution to 'direct' and declare preferences.output_contract to get validated JSON records from a single call, routed to the cheapest model that holds the schema.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextNoAdditional context for the workflow.
deliveryNoDelivery method. Default: polling (MCP clients typically can't handle SSE).
task_typeNoOptional 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, compose, 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.
preferencesNoOptional workflow preferences.
context_fieldsNoOptional, with prior_workflow_id: the fields to carry over. Pass ["full_step_results"] for every step output in full.
task_descriptionYesNatural language description of the task, at most 4,000 characters. Be specific — include what you want produced, constraints, and context. Example: 'Design a caching layer for our API gateway with Redis integration.'
prior_workflow_idNoOptional: the workflow_id (wr_…) of a finished workflow in your workspace to build on. Its results are passed to this run as context. It is charged as a new run at the normal quote.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNo
statusNo
poll_urlNo
executionNoPresent with value 'direct' when direct execution ran. Absent for standard multi-call execution.
task_typeNo
value_classNo
workflow_idNo
delivery_modeNo
available_modesNo
estimated_creditsNo
execution_fallbackNoTrue when you explicitly requested direct execution and it could not be honoured — the workflow ran as standard multi-call instead. Never set for an auto-selected attempt, since you did not ask.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover only the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false); the description goes well beyond by disclosing the credit/billing model (prior_workflow_id 'is charged as a new run at the normal quote'), the 402 max_budget_exceeded refusal that fires before anything runs or is charged, delivery semantics (SSE/webhook/polling, with polling the MCP default), and the execution-mode fallbacks. These are the operational traits an agent most needs and none are in 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action, then the rigor_plan prerequisite, then the direct-execution branch — a sensible ordering. However, the execution-mode sentence is a very long run-on packing several edge cases, and the direct/output_contract guidance largely duplicates what the schema fields already say, so a bit of it does not earn its place.

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?

With an output schema present the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly spends its length on routing, cost, delivery, and refusal behavior instead. Annotations, a fully documented 7-param schema, and this description together leave nothing an agent needs missing before invocation.

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 7 parameters, including the nested output_contract and delivery objects. The description restates the same guidance (direct execution, output_contract validation, delivery methods) rather than adding syntax, formats, or defaults the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opening states a specific verb+resource ('Execute a structured workflow end-to-end') and immediately scopes what the tool produces (solution designs, competitive analyses, governance documents) and how it routes work (classifies the task, selects a tool sequence, executes each step). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling rigor_plan by naming it as the free preview step. An agent can separate this from rigor_status/rigor_workflows without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call rigor_plan first to preview sequence and cost before committing credits, and gives an explicit branch: for atomic work set preferences.execution='direct' with an output_contract. It also states fallback conditions (attachments or prior_workflow_id force standard execution). This is when-to-use, when-not, and alternative-selection guidance all in one.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources