Zovo WBS Chart

Check WBS outline

check_wbs

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user wants a WBS outline or numbered task list checked without a chart, for example "check my WBS codes for gaps" or "do the costs in this breakdown add up". Takes the same outline and style as make_wbs. Returns the codes (assigned in outline order, or the given codes checked for gaps, duplicates, order and missing parents), the rolled-up hours and cost per item and for the project, parent values that differ from the sum of their children with both numbers, work packages without hours or cost, and the limits. Draws nothing and makes no files. Does not schedule tasks.

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": {
      "outline": "<outline>"
    },
    "name": "check_wbs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`style`	No	How levels are written: auto (default; numbered when each line starts with a code such as 1 or 1.2, refused when only some lines do), indent (use it when item names start with a number, such as 3.5 inch drives), or numbered. Example: auto.
`outline`	Yes	The work outline, one item per line, up to 40,000 characters and 400 items. Either indent 2 spaces (or 4, or 1 tab) per level, or start every line with a code such as "1.2.3 Name". Optional fields after the name, separated by "\|": hours=40, cost=1,200.50 (at most 2 decimals, one currency symbol such as $ for the whole chart), owner=Ana. Example: "Website\n Design \| hours=40 \| cost=2,000\n Build\n Front end \| hours=80 \| owner=Ana".

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`codes`	Yes
`notes`	Yes
`ready`	Yes
`shown`	No
`style`	Yes
`counts`	Yes
`issues`	Yes
`limits`	Yes
`totals`	Yes
`rollup_check`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: it draws nothing, writes no files, and does not schedule tasks. It also enumerates exactly what is validated (gaps, duplicates, order, missing parents) and what is reported, so the agent knows the operation's boundaries and output shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage condition and examples, then the return behavior, then hard exclusions — a sensible order. The result paragraph is dense and long, and some of the return detail overlaps what the output schema already provides, so it is slightly heavier than necessary.

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 two-parameter, read-only validation tool, the description covers triggering, input compatibility with make_wbs, validation scope, reported figures, and explicit non-capabilities. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it ties 'outline' and 'style' to make_wbs for consistency and explains that supplied codes are validated for gaps, duplicates, order and missing parents. That clarifies the effect of the parameters rather than restating their formats.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it checks a WBS outline or numbered task list rather than drawing one. It explicitly separates itself from the sibling make_wbs ('without a chart', 'Draws nothing and makes no files'), so an agent can choose between the two without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('Use this when the user wants a WBS outline or numbered task list checked without a chart') plus two concrete user-phrase examples. The alternative (make_wbs) is only implied through 'without a chart' and 'Takes the same outline and style as make_wbs' rather than named with an explicit switch condition.

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

All Zovo WBS Chart 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?