Planner (proof-of-done)

goal-add-evidence-text

SUBORDINATE / supplementary path — does NOT close an acceptance criterion. Adds a text-only note (URL to a permanent external source like CI run / GitHub commit / issue, or a description of a manual scenario) as extra context alongside the real proof. The path that actually covers an AC and closes a Grove goal is goal-attach-evidence — use that one for every criterion. Plain evidence NEVER counts toward AC coverage no matter how many you add; it is only a complement to an attached file. NOT for bytes — screenshots, logs, API responses, exports all go through goal-attach-evidence. NOT for filesystem paths — those need goal-attach-evidence with the actual file.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	Text payload: URL to a permanent external source or a description of a manual scenario
`createdBy`	No	Identifier of the uploading agent
`criterionId`	Yes	UUID acceptance criterion

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses that this tool does NOT close an acceptance criterion and that plain evidence is only a complement. This is critical behavioral context not present in the annotations and clearly defines the tool's role and limitations.

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?

The description is moderately concise and front-loads the key distinction with 'SUBORDINATE / supplementary path'. While longer than the two-sentence ideal, every sentence provides necessary caveats about scope and exclusions, with no fluff.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, its relationship to the key sibling goal-attach-evidence, and the constraints on valid input. It is complete for a supplementary tool with no output schema, leaving no ambiguity about how to use it.

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 schema already documents 'text' as a URL or manual scenario. The description adds exclusions ('NOT for bytes', 'NOT for filesystem paths') but these are more about usage boundaries than new parameter semantics. Thus, 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 opens with 'SUBORDINATE / supplementary path' and clearly states the tool adds a text-only note as extra context. It explicitly distinguishes from goal-attach-evidence, which actually closes an AC, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly instructs to use goal-attach-evidence for every criterion and provides clear exclusions: 'NOT for bytes' (screenshots, logs, API responses, exports) and 'NOT for filesystem paths'. It also states that plain evidence never counts toward AC coverage, giving decisive when-to-use guidance.

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?