NEXUS AGI

Create goal

create_goal

Create a goal. New goals start in 'draft' status and are not worked on until activated with activate_goal.

Args:
    name: Short name for the goal.
    description: What must be achieved.
    priority: Priority 1-10 (10 = highest). Default 5. Values above 10
        or below 0 are rejected.
    goal_type: 'task', 'objective' or 'milestone' (stored as
        'achievement'), 'habit' (stored as 'maintenance'), or one of
        'achievement', 'maintenance', 'optimization', 'exploration',
        'avoidance'. Unknown values are stored as 'achievement'.
    parent_goal_id: UUID of a parent goal, to make this a subgoal.
        A parent that does not exist returns 404.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "create_goal"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	Yes
`priority`	No
`goal_type`	No	task
`description`	Yes
`parent_goal_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`name`	No
`status`	No
`progress`	No
`goal_type`	No
`created_at`	No
`updated_at`	No
`description`	No
`parent_goal_id`	No
`priority_weight`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the draft lifecycle state, priority validation rules (rejects >10 or <0), goal_type normalization into stored achievement/maintenance values, and the 404 on a missing parent. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then a clean Args block with one entry per parameter. The goal_type entry is slightly dense with the value/storage mapping repeated, but every sentence adds usable information and there is no filler.

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 mutation tool with an output schema already covering return values, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: creation semantics, lifecycle, validation constraints, type normalization, and error behavior. Nothing material is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it documents all five parameters, including the priority range and default, the accepted goal_type values with their storage mappings, and the semantics and failure mode of parent_goal_id. Only `name`/`description` are lightly glossed, but their meaning is self-evident.

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 ('Create a goal') and immediately frames the lifecycle ('start in draft status'), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_goal/list_goals. It also names `activate_goal` as the follow-up sibling, so the boundary is clear.

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 gives a concrete when-this-matters condition: new goals are not worked on until activated via `activate_goal`, which routes the agent to the next tool. It doesn't explicitly compare against create_task or explain when a goal is the right entity versus a task, so it falls short of full alternative coverage.

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

All NEXUS AGI 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?