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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedJul 21, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / overrideResolvedBy
```
Added value: +{
+  "default": null,
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

Changed2 schema fields changedJul 21, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / linkedGoalId

Added value: +{
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Optional UUID of an existing goal to record as an\naudit reference (only meaningful when resolution=drop)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / resolution / description

Previous value: -"One of: edit, split, reject"New value: +"One of: edit, split, drop, reject"

AddedJul 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait beyond the annotations: 'All prior evidence on the AC is deleted for edit/split/drop so the agent must submit fresh proof.' This is exactly the kind of destructive side-effect an agent needs to know. The annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent, so this disclosure carries the safety burden and does it well.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. Each sentence earns its place: the first covers purpose and options, the second covers the destructive consequence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers the main decision workflow, parameter dependencies, and the key side-effect of deleted evidence. It does not explain what the response looks like or the meaning of overrideResolvedBy, but the core invocation logic is complete enough for an agent to act correctly.

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 description coverage is high at 83%, and the description adds meaningful semantics by explaining each resolution mode and its parameter implications: edit requires newText, drop optionally uses linkedGoalId as an audit reference, split moves the AC to a child goal. However, the overrideResolvedBy parameter is not mentioned or explained, leaving a small gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') with a clear resource ('pending AC escalation') and enumerates the four resolution modes: edit, split, drop, and reject. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from related goal tools like goal-request-ac-change.

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 clearly states when to use this tool (to resolve pending escalations) and gives concrete context for each resolution mode, including that reject means the agent must find another way. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?