Skip to main content
Glama

Conducted MCP

by io.github.Mostov82

Get the procedure for a methodology phase

next_procedure

Return the ordered procedure for where the agent is in the methodology loop. Supply phase (one of: kickoff, goal_brief, intent_doc, session_open, session_active, session_close, standup) and optional facts (e.g. a ticket id) to tailor the output. Returns { steps, reads_first, escalation_points, notes? } sourced from the bundled guides and conventions — the procedure half of advisor + validator. The server reads no files.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
factsNoOptional facts to weave into the procedure (e.g. ticket id, work dir).
phaseYesWhich phase of the methodology loop the agent is in.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and exceeds expectations. It discloses that the server reads no files (safe, fast), the output originates from bundled guides and conventions, and the exact return structure. No destructive or hidden behaviors are omitted.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second packs in parameter guidance, output shape, source, and a behavioral guarantee. Essential information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying the return shape, sourcing, and behavior. It covers all relevant aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, what parameters mean, what output to expect, and a safety guarantee (no file reads). No gaps remain.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by listing the enum values inline, providing an example fact (ticket id), and explaining that facts 'tailor the output.' This extra context helps the agent understand parameter usage beyond the schema's 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 clearly states the tool returns the ordered procedure for a methodology phase. It lists the valid phases, the output structure, and distinguishes from sibling tools like validate_artifact by noting it is 'the procedure half of advisor + validator.' The verb 'Return' plus resource 'ordered procedure for a methodology phase' is specific and unambiguous.

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 tells when to use the tool: when the agent needs the procedure for their current phase in the methodology loop. It provides context about the tool's role as the procedure half of advisor/validator, implying complementarity with sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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