Planner (proof-of-done)

goal-update-criterion

Idempotent

Update an acceptance criterion: its text and/or its class + probe. probeClass=post-deploy requires an executable probeSpec {method, url, expect:{http_code, body}} (kept from the criterion when omitted and one already exists; otherwise error=probe_required); probeSpec alone implies post-deploy; probeClass=pre-merge drops the probe. Grove mode: only while goal is in backlog (frozen once started), quality linter blocks high-severity issues. Standard mode: until goal is done, linter is advisory. Returns updated criterion details (text, probeClass, probeSpec) and any quality findings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	No	New criterion text (omit to keep)
`probeSpec`	No	Исполнимая проба post-deploy критерия: {method, url, expect: {http_code, body: {field: expectedValue}}}; "{{deployed_revision}}" в ожидаемых значениях = SHA развёрнутой ревизии. Пример: {"method":"GET","url":"https://planner.monopoly-gold.com/api/healthz","expect":{"http_code":200,"body":{"status":"ok","revision":"{{deployed_revision}}"}}}
`probeClass`	No	Класс критерия: pre-merge (доказывается в CI / приложенным evidence; сбрасывает пробу) или post-deploy (доказывается исполнимой пробой против прода; требует probeSpec — свой или уже сохранённый)
`criterionId`	Yes	UUID acceptance criterion

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 29, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / probeSpec / properties / method / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "GET",
-  "HEAD",
-  "POST",
-  "PUT",
-  "PATCH",
-  "DELETE"
-]New value: +[
+  "GET",
+  "HEAD"
+]

Changed5 schema fields changedAug 28, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / probeClass

Added value: +{
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Класс критерия: pre-merge (доказывается в CI / приложенным evidence; сбрасывает пробу) или post-deploy (доказывается исполнимой пробой против прода; требует probeSpec — свой или уже сохранённый)",
+  "enum": [
+    "pre-merge",
+    "post-deploy",
+    null
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / probeSpec

Added value: +{
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Исполнимая проба post-deploy критерия: {method, url, expect: {http_code, body: {field: expectedValue}}}; \"{{deployed_revision}}\" в ожидаемых значениях = SHA развёрнутой ревизии. Пример: {\"method\":\"GET\",\"url\":\"https://planner.monopoly-gold.com/api/healthz\",\"expect\":{\"http_code\":200,\"body\":{\"status\":\"ok\",\"revision\":\"{{deployed_revision}}\"}}}",
+  "properties": {
+    "expect": {
+      "description": "What the response must contain: http_code (exact) and/or body (subset of fields with expected scalar values; nested objects = nested fields; \"{{deployed_revision}}\" = SHA of the revision that triggered the probe)",
+      "properties": {
+        "body": {
+          "additionalProperties": true,
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "http_code": {
+          "maximum": 599,
+          "minimum": 100,
+          "type": "integer"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "method": {
+      "description": "HTTP method of the probe request",
+      "enum": [
+        "GET",
+        "HEAD",
+        "POST",
+        "PUT",
+        "PATCH",
+        "DELETE"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "description": "Absolute http(s) URL the runner requests on the deployed instance",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  }
+}

addedInput schema / properties / text / default
```
Added value: +null
```

changedInput schema / properties / text / description

Previous value: -"New criterion text"New value: +"New criterion text (omit to keep)"

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "criterionId",
-  "text"
-]New value: +[
+  "criterionId"
+]

AddedJun 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false and idempotent=true; the description goes well beyond by explaining probeClass/probeSpec interaction, error cases (probe_required), probe dropping for pre-merge, mode-dependent linter blocking, and the return value. This gives the agent a realistic model of side effects and failure conditions.

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 dense but efficient: it front-loads the core purpose, then packs conditional behavior and return information into a compact paragraph. Every clause contributes meaning, though the structure is slightly run-on and could benefit from clearer separation of mode rules.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies return value details (updated criterion fields and quality findings). It also covers error conditions, environment/mode constraints, and parameter interactions, making the tool fully actionable for an agent. Only an explicit sibling-tool comparison is absent, but that is not essential here.

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 crucial cross-parameter semantics: probeSpec alone implies post-deploy, probeClass=post-deploy keeps an existing probe when omitted, pre-merge drops the probe, and missing required probes produce error=probe_required. These rules are not derivable from the individual parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update an acceptance criterion' and lists exactly what can be changed (text, class, probe). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like goal-add-criterion and goal-remove-criterion without requiring the agent to infer 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 gives clear context on when the tool applies: updating an existing acceptance criterion, and it details mode-specific conditions (Grove vs. Standard). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this instead of X,' but the scope and conditional behavior are clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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?