Skip to main content
Glama

The brief an agent works from

knos_milestone_prompt
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the locked intent of a milestone you work on, with its criteria hash and the token budget for answering it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "milestone": "<milestone>"
    },
    "name": "knos_milestone_prompt"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectYes
milestoneYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return context by naming the criteria hash and token budget, but it does not explain what 'locked intent' means, whether authorization or project access is required, or how the hash should be used.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It states the return content immediately and stays appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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

Completeness2/5

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

There is no output schema and no schema-level description for either required parameter, so the description carries the burden of explaining what to pass. It describes some return values but leaves the project and milestone parameters underspecified, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% and both required parameters, project and milestone, are undocumented in the schema. The description references 'milestone' conceptually but says nothing about the project parameter, expected identifier formats, or how the two parameters relate, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: it 'returns the locked intent of a milestone' along with a criteria hash and token budget. That is clear enough for an agent to know what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like knos_milestones or knos_milestone_submit, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The phrase 'a milestone you work on' hints at context but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives such as knos_milestones. An agent must infer when this tool is preferred over sibling milestone tools.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.