ai.page

Propose a roadmap

propose_roadmap

Idempotent

Propose a roadmap for the commons: every concept to master towards a goal, in order, in titled sections. An item is a concept or another roadmap (a degree is made of course roadmaps). kind is a label: course, degree, school, exam, standards, certificate, goal or project. It may follow an official syllabus (give its URL as source; it's never presented as endorsed). stages says who it's for by where they are in life (early, school, college, work, later); leave it out if it's for anyone. Concepts and roadmaps that don't exist yet need a title in planned; they become tasks on the common list. To build on an existing roadmap, give a new id with base set to 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": {
      "roadmap": "<roadmap>"
    },
    "name": "propose_roadmap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task`	No	The task id, if you took this as a roadmap task
`roadmap`	Yes	{ id, title, kind, subject?, lang, goal?, source?, country?, stages?: [early \| school \| college \| work \| later], base?, sections: [{ title, items: [{ concept: id } \| { roadmap: id }] }], planned?: { <new id>: { title, subject? } } }

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare a non-readonly, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail beyond that: planned items 'become tasks on the common list' is a side effect the annotations do not reveal, and a syllabus source is 'never presented as endorsed' clarifies how input is treated. It stops short of describing permissions, review/approval flow, or the response.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single dense, run-on paragraph with heavy in-group jargon ('the commons', 'the common list') and no front-loading of the key structural facts (id, sections, items). Nearly every sentence carries information, but the ordering is hard to scan for an agent assembling a nested payload.

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?

For a tool taking a deeply nested free-form object with no output schema, the description covers the payload semantics well but says nothing about what comes back (a proposal id, a task id, a URL) or what happens on idempotent re-submission. An agent can construct the input but cannot predict the outcome.

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 baseline is 3, and the description meaningfully exceeds it by enumerating the kind labels (course, degree, school, exam, standards, certificate, goal or project), explaining the stages vocabulary and its omission rule, and clarifying base and planned, none of which is constrained in the schema itself. The 'task' parameter is only covered by the schema, not the description.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Propose a roadmap for the commons: every concept to master towards a goal, in order, in titled sections.' That is specific enough to distinguish it from read_roadmap and start_roadmap, but it never names a sibling to contrast with 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?

Usage conditions are given for individual fields rather than for tool selection: 'leave it out if it's for anyone' for stages, and 'To build on an existing roadmap, give a new id with base set to it.' There is no statement of when to call this instead of the closely related propose_concept, nor any exclusion or precondition.

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

All ai.page 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?