Skip to main content
Glama

Make WBS chart

make_wbs
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user wants a work breakdown structure (WBS) chart or a project breakdown drawn from an outline, for example "make a WBS chart of this project" or "turn this task list into a WBS with codes and cost totals". Takes the outline (indent per level, or codes such as 1.2.3 on each line) with optional hours=, cost= and owner= fields, a layout (top-down or left-right), a page size and a title. Returns codes, rolled-up hours and cost per item and for the project, problems such as a parent value that differs from its children, a geometry check, the PDF page count, an interactive chart, and PDF, SVG and CSV downloads. Refuses an outline that mixes styles or skips a level, naming the line. Up to 400 items and 8 levels. Does not schedule tasks or add dates. Download links of large charts expire after about 1 hour.

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": "make_wbs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
styleNoHow 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.
titleNoChart title, printed on the chart and used in file names, up to 80 characters, e.g. "Website relaunch". When the outline has several top-level items, the title also names the project box above them.
outlineYesThe 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".
page_sizeNoPDF page: letter (default), a4 or tabloid (11 x 17 in).
orientationNoChart layout: top-down (deliverables side by side with their work listed below) or left-right (one column per level). Leave it out to get the layout that needs fewer PDF pages (top-down on a tie). Example: top-down.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pdfYes
shownNo
styleYes
titleYes
countsYes
issuesYes
totalsYes
warningsYes
downloadsYes
top_levelYes
orientationYes
layout_checkYes
rollup_checkYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations, it discloses return contents, refusal behavior for mixed styles or level skips, item and level limits, and download link expiry. Those are the runtime details an agent needs to set expectations.

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 front-loaded with a use-when clause, then covers inputs, outputs, failure behavior, limits, and exclusions. It is dense but every sentence adds operational value, with no redundant restatement.

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 complex generator with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, inputs, outputs, errors, scope limits, and exclusions. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without reading the output schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including enums and outline syntax. The description summarizes the outline and optional fields but does not add much syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 direct use-when statement and specific examples ('make a WBS chart of this project'), making the resource and operation clear. It does not mention the sibling check_wbs, so it lacks the explicit sibling differentiation required for 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 Guidelines4/5

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

It tells the agent when to use the tool (user wants a WBS chart from an outline) and includes a clear when-not ('Does not schedule tasks or add dates'). It does not point to check_wbs as an alternative for validation or checking, so alternatives are not fully addressed.

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.

Resources