Planner (proof-of-done)

goal-dismiss-red-team

Idempotent

Dismiss the red-team finding that blocks a goal from starting, when you disagree with the verdict. Requires a reason of at least 80 characters explaining why the counterexample does not apply. The dismissal is recorded in goal history and surfaced in goal-get, so "agent overrode the gate" stays distinguishable from "no hole was found". Prefer fixing the acceptance criteria via goal-add-criterion — dismissing leaves the hole open.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`goalId`	Yes	UUID цели
`reason`	Yes	Почему контрпример неприменим — от 80 символов, попадёт в историю цели

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true, and description adds that the dismissal is recorded in history and surfaced in goal-get, providing context beyond the structured 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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description fully covers purpose, constraints, behavioral effects, and alternative actions. No gaps identified.

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 covers 100% of parameters, and description adds meaning by specifying the reason must be at least 80 characters and explaining where it appears in history.

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?

Clearly specifies the verb 'dismiss', resource 'red-team finding', and condition 'when you disagree with the verdict'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like goal-add-criterion.

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?

Explicitly prefers goal-add-criterion over dismissing, and requires a reason of at least 80 characters. Implicitly guides when to use (disagree with verdict) but does not list exclusions.

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?