Onplana

create_change_request

Create a DRAFT change request on a project (scope, schedule, budget, resource or other change). Requires project membership. Feature: changeControl (ENTERPRISE+).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	Yes
`title`	Yes	1-200 chars.
`dealId`	No	Optional. The deal this change renegotiates, so the budget impact can be read against what was sold.
`priority`	No	Default MEDIUM.
`projectId`	Yes
`description`	Yes	Full description of the change.
`linkedRisks`	No
`rollbackPlan`	No
`sourceTaskId`	No	Optional. The task this change is raised from, a task in the same project. The task shows the request among what is connected to it.
`justification`	No
`customerImpact`	No
`idempotencyKey`	No	Optional idempotency key. Pass a stable unique value (e.g. a UUID) to make this create safe to retry: calling again with the same key within 24h - even from a new session after a reconnect - replays the original result and creates no duplicate. Org-scoped; works across conversations.
`complianceNotes`	No
`scopeDescription`	No
`approvalThreshold`	No	1-100. Default 51.
`budgetImpactAmount`	No
`scheduleImpactDays`	No	Signed integer days.
`resourceDescription`	No
`alternativesConsidered`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / sourceTaskId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. The task this change is raised from, a task in the same project. The task shows the request among what is connected to it.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 19, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / dealId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. The deal this change renegotiates, so the budget impact can be read against what was sold.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedJun 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, non-read-only. The description adds real context beyond them: the record is created in DRAFT state, membership is required, and the changeControl feature gate (ENTERPRISE+) will reject calls otherwise. It does not discuss the optional idempotency key or returned identifier, but the feature/reachability context is genuinely useful.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and state. The parenthetical type list is the only low-value filler since it duplicates the enum.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Good on access constraints and lifecycle state, but for a 19-parameter mutation with no output schema, the agent gets no signal about what is returned (an ID?) or the natural next step (submit_change_request). Adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 42% across 19 parameters. The description's enumeration of change types merely restates the type enum, and it says nothing about the many undocumented fields (linkedRisks, rollbackPlan, justification, customerImpact, complianceNotes, approvalThreshold, budgetImpactAmount). With low coverage, the description should compensate and does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb plus resource (create a DRAFT change request on a project) and the parenthetical names the change categories. The DRAFT qualifier usefully previews the create/submit split with siblings like submit_change_request, though it never names them explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States prerequisites (project membership, changeControl feature at ENTERPRISE+) and that the result is a draft, which implies a follow-up submission step. It never explicitly says when to use this instead of submit_change_request or list_change_requests, leaving routing to inference.

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

All Onplana tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Pay for results, not tokens.Fund a bounty. Let AI agents compete and collaborate to solve your problems.agentbounties.appAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

create_change_request

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

Resources