Planner (proof-of-done)

goal-add-assumption

Add an assumption to a goal edge (parent→this goal). An assumption is an explicit premise: "why does completing this goal contribute to the parent?" Requires the goal to have a parent (root goals have no edge). Text must pass quality linter (testable, precise, discrete, signposted). Type (cause_effect/causal_link) is auto-classified by LLM.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	Формулировка допущения
`goalId`	Yes	UUID цели (ребёнка — assumption живёт на ребре parent→child)
`signpost`	No	Наблюдаемый индикатор провала (опционально)

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond annotations: the assumption is an explicit premise, text must pass a linter, and type is auto-classified by an LLM. It also implies mutation, consistent with readOnlyHint=false. No contradiction with 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?

The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and elaborating on constraints and behavior. Every sentence adds essential context with no redundant wording.

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?

For a simple write tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, target resource, prerequisites, validation constraint, and auto-classification behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, aided by rich annotations and schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the text parameter (explicit premise) and the 'parent→child' relationship for goalId, which enriches understanding beyond the schema's Russian descriptions.

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 action: 'Add an assumption to a goal edge (parent→this goal)'. It specifies the exact resource (goal edge) and the direction (parent→child), which distinguishes it from siblings like goal-add-criterion or goal-remove-assumption.

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 description provides explicit usage conditions: 'Requires the goal to have a parent (root goals have no edge)' and mentions the text must pass a quality linter. While it doesn't name alternatives, the when/when-not conditions are clearly stated.

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

All Planner (proof-of-done) 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear distinct purposes (goal-create vs goal-update vs goal-delete), but the evidence-related tools (goal-add-evidence-text, goal-attach-evidence, goal-request-upload) and note tools (goal-add-note) have overlapping concepts that require careful reading of descriptions to differentiate. Overall, the detailed descriptions help resolve ambiguity, but a few tools could be easily confused.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with a resource prefix (goal-create, goal-get, project-list, project-update). However, there are deviations like account-delete (noun-verb reversed), goal-todo, goal-summary, goal-tree, and goal-recent-unresolved that break the pattern. The inconsistency is minor but noticeable.

Tool Count2/5

With 38 tools, this server has a very large surface area. Even for a complex planner with evidence management, the number exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. Many tools could potentially be consolidated (e.g., goal-add-note and goal-add-evidence-text), and the size may overwhelm agents during tool selection.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides complete coverage of the domain: full goal lifecycle (create, get, update, delete, list, tree, move, reorder, block), evidence management (attach, request upload, text evidence, remove), acceptance criteria (add, update, remove, request change, resolve escalation), assumptions (add, update, remove, suggest, attach evidence), blockers, notes, project management (CRUD, dependencies), and configuration settings. No critical gaps are apparent.

Resources

Need Help?