Planner (proof-of-done)

goal-request-ac-change

Request a change to an acceptance criterion. grounds=unreachable (default): the AC cannot be proven — requires ≥3 failed evidence attempts (weak/mismatch) with 0 matches. grounds=wrong_criterion: the AC measures the wrong thing (owner never approved this wording, or a revealed fact shows it tracks something else) — no failed attempts required, but you MUST pass quotedFragment: a verbatim slice of the criterion text you claim is wrong (checked against the stored text), and the reason must name the unapproved wording or the finding; difficulty alone is rejected. An LLM judge screens the reason either way. On pass, creates an escalation for the goal owner to resolve (edit AC text, split to sub-goal, drop AC without creating a child, or reject). Grove mode only, goal must be in_progress.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reason`	Yes	Structured justification. For unreachable: what is unreachable and what was attempted. For wrong_criterion: which wording/threshold the owner never approved, or what finding showed the criterion measures something else
`grounds`	No	Subject of the request: 'unreachable' (default) or 'wrong_criterion'	unreachable
`criterionId`	Yes	UUID of the acceptance criterion to escalate
`quotedFragment`	No	Verbatim slice of the criterion text claimed to be wrong — required when grounds=wrong_criterion, ignored otherwise

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (mutating, non-idempotent), the description discloses several behavioral traits: an LLM judge screens the reason, quotedFragment is checked against stored text, pass creates an escalation for the goal owner, and difficulty alone is rejected. It also mentions mode/goal-state prerequisites. This is rich, non-obvious context.

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 long but densely informative. It front-loads the main action and then uses conditionals to structure the two grounds. Some sentences are run-ons, but every clause earns its place; 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?

Given the tool's complexity, the absence of an output schema, and its place among many goal-* tools, the description is thorough: it covers prerequisites, ground-specific requirements, validation, judge screening, and the resulting escalation flow. Nothing critical seems missing for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical semantics beyond the schema: it explains the meaning of 'grounds' values, the required evidence threshold for unreachable, the verbatim-check requirement for quotedFragment, and the structured justification expectations for 'reason'. This significantly aids correct invocation.

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 tool's purpose: 'Request a change to an acceptance criterion.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like goal-resolve-escalation and goal-update-criterion by framing this as a request that creates an escalation, not a direct change. The two grounds (unreachable and wrong_criterion) further specify the exact intent.

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 explicitly explains when to use each ground (unreachable requires ≥3 failed evidence attempts; wrong_criterion requires an unapproved wording or finding). It also states constraints: 'Grove mode only, goal must be in_progress.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternative sibling tools, the conditions and escalation behavior provide clear usage context.

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?