Plith Rigor

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

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, 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.
`preferences`	No	Optional workflow preferences.
`context_fields`	No	Optional, with prior_workflow_id: the fields to carry over. Pass ["full_step_results"] for every step output in full.
`task_description`	Yes	Natural 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_id`	No	Optional: 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

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it explicitly does not execute, it is free with no credits charged, and allowed_modes in the response signals execution eligibility — cost and side-effect behavior an agent needs.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the classification/selection behavior, then the eligibility signal, then cost. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.

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?

For a planning tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it produces, that it does not execute, cost, and how to read execution eligibility. It stops short of explaining the follow-up path to rigor_execute, a minor gap given the rich schema.

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 nested parameters (task_type, preferences, output_contract, prior_workflow_id) are thoroughly self-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the response field allowed_modes, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('get a structured workflow plan with per-step cost estimates') and delineates scope precisely: classifies, selects a framework sequence, and returns the plan 'without executing anything' — which cleanly separates it from the rigor_execute sibling.

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 temporal context for when to call it, and the non-execution clause implies the plan-then-execute handoff. However, it never names rigor_execute (or rigor_status/rigor_workflows) as the alternative, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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

All Plith Rigor tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?