Skip to main content
Glama

Planner (proof-of-done)

by com.monopoly-gold.planner

goal-add-note

Add a free-form note (markdown supported) to a goal — decisions taken, dead ends hit, context worth carrying into the next session. Notes are NOT evidence: they hang off the goal rather than an acceptance criterion and never count toward AC coverage or closing a Grove goal — use goal-attach-evidence for proof. Notes are visible in the goal detail panel and returned by goal-get under notes[].

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesТекст заметки (markdown)
goalIdYesUUID цели

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint false). The description adds that notes are not evidence, are visible in the detail panel, and returned by goal-get under notes[]. It does not cover all potential behaviors (e.g., no mention of editing or deletion), but provides sufficient context for an additive tool.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. The main action is front-loaded, followed by essential clarifications. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description fully explains the tool's role, behavior, and relationship to siblings. It mentions visibility and retrieval via goal-get, which is sufficient context.

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 coverage is 100% and already describes both parameters (text as markdown string, goalId as UUID). The description reinforces that notes are free-form and markdown supported, but adds minimal new semantic value beyond the schema.

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 a free-form note), resource (to a goal), and format (markdown supported). It distinguishes from the sibling tool goal-attach-evidence by noting that notes are not evidence and do not count toward acceptance criteria coverage.

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 states when to use (for decisions, dead ends, context) and when not to use (for evidence, directing to goal-attach-evidence). It also clarifies that notes do not affect AC coverage or closing a goal, preventing misuse.

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) toolsInspect
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