Skip to main content
Glama

Conducted MCP

by io.github.Mostov82

Evaluate whether a goal brief's gates are resolved

evaluate_gate

Encode the goal-brief rule that no session may begin while any gate is open. Supply either a structured gates list ([{ id, resolved }]) or a goal-brief content string, in which case the GATE LIST checkboxes (- [ ] / - [x]) are parsed. Returns { all_resolved, unresolved, may_begin } where may_begin === all_resolved. The server reads no files — the content is agent-supplied.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gatesNoStructured gate list.
contentNoA goal-brief markdown string whose GATE LIST is parsed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses that the server reads no files (agent-supplied content) and details the return shape. Without annotations, it carries the burden well, though it does not mention idempotency or side effects (likely none). No contradictions.

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 core rule, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds critical information: rule, input options, output shape, and server behavior.

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?

Covers all essential aspects: purpose, input alternatives, parsing behavior, output structure, and server constraint. Without an output schema, the description fully defines return values. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 descriptions are present for both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the parsing of markdown checkboxes and the mutual exclusivity implicit in the alternatives, going beyond schema.

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 states the verb (evaluate), resource (goal brief gates), and the rule it encodes. Distinguishes from sibling tools like kickoff_plan or decision_log_guidance by specifying gate resolution for session starts.

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 provides two input alternatives (structured gates list or content string) and explains the parsing behavior. Implies usage context via the rule about session start, but does not explicitly state when not to use or what alternatives exist.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Conducted MCP toolsInspect
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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool addresses a distinct aspect of the methodology: decision logging, gate evaluation, kickoff planning and questions, procedure retrieval, standup scheduling, and artifact validation. No two tools have overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case but mix verb_noun (evaluate_gate, validate_artifact) with noun_phrase patterns (kickoff_plan, next_procedure, standup_due). The pattern is not fully consistent, though each name is still readable.

Tool Count5/5

With 7 tools, the server covers the key lifecycle points of the Conducted Development methodology without being too sparse or bloated. Each tool serves a clear purpose within this scope.

Completeness4/5

The tools cover decision logging, gate checks, kickoff, procedure guidance, standup triggers, and validation. Missing an explicit tool for session execution, but next_procedure provides steps, mitigating the gap.

Resources