Planner (proof-of-done)

goal-resolve-escalation

Resolve a pending AC escalation. Owner decides: edit (provide new AC text), split (move AC to a child goal), drop (remove the AC outright, optionally with a linkedGoalId audit reference), or reject (agent must find another way). All prior evidence on the AC is deleted for edit/split/drop so the agent must submit fresh proof.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Optional comment explaining the decision
`newText`	No	New AC text (required when resolution=edit)
`resolution`	Yes	One of: edit, split, drop, reject
`escalationId`	Yes	UUID of the escalation to resolve
`linkedGoalId`	No	Optional UUID of an existing goal to record as an audit reference (only meaningful when resolution=drop)
`overrideResolvedBy`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false annotations, the description openly discloses a critical side effect: all prior evidence on the AC is deleted for edit/split/drop, forcing fresh proof. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail needed.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No filler; every phrase carries meaning—modes, deletions, and the reject fallback are packed efficiently.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: resolution modes, the destructive evidence deletion, and the reject path. The input schema handles parameter details, so the description is complete for safe invocation.

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 83% and includes descriptions for newText and linkedGoalId. The description adds semantic meaning for the resolution parameter (explaining what each value does) and clarifies the audit reference purpose, which the schema does not fully convey. overrideResolvedBy remains undocumented in both.

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: 'Resolve a pending AC escalation' and enumerates the four resolution modes (edit, split, drop, reject). It distinguishes itself from sibling goal tools by focusing on the escalation workflow.

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 clear context on when to use: when a pending AC escalation needs resolution and the caller acts as owner. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the resolution modes give implicit usage boundaries.

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?