Skip to main content
Glama

set_goal

Define and track personal objectives with specific timeframes and categories to organize progress and maintain focus on productivity goals.

Instructions

Set a new goal.

Args: goal: The goal description timeframe: When you want to achieve this (e.g., 'this week', 'this month', 'long-term') category: Category of the goal (e.g., 'career', 'health', 'personal', 'general')

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalYes
timeframeYes
categoryNogeneral

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The actual implementation of the set_goal tool logic which interacts with the database.
    async def set_goal(goal: str, timeframe: str, category: str = "general") -> str:
        """Set a new goal.
    
        Args:
            goal: The goal description
            timeframe: When you want to achieve this
            category: Category of the goal
    
        Returns:
            Success message
        """
        db = await get_db()
    
        await db.execute(
            "INSERT INTO goals (goal, timeframe, category) VALUES (?, ?, ?)",
            (goal, timeframe, category),
        )
        await db.commit()
    
        return f"✓ Set goal: {goal} ({timeframe}, {category})"
  • Registration of the set_goal tool using @mcp.tool() and delegation to the storage handler.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def set_goal(goal: str, timeframe: str, category: str = "general") -> str:
        """Set a new goal.
    
        Args:
            goal: The goal description
            timeframe: When you want to achieve this (e.g., 'this week', 'this month', 'long-term')
            category: Category of the goal (e.g., 'career', 'health', 'personal', 'general')
        """
        return await storage.set_goal(goal, timeframe, category)
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose what the tool returns (despite having an output schema), whether setting a goal replaces existing ones, or any side effects. Only behavioral hint is the example values for timeframe and category.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The 'Args:' section is compact and efficient, though the docstring-style formatting is slightly less readable than prose. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the 3 parameters and existing output schema, the description adequately covers input semantics but lacks behavioral context. Since an output schema exists, the omission of return value description is acceptable per guidelines, but the absence of workflow context (how goals interact with todos/tasks) leaves gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates effectively by documenting all 3 parameters. It provides clear descriptions for 'goal' and 'category', and adds concrete examples for 'timeframe' and 'category' that clarify expected input formats.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Set') and resource ('goal'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_todo' or 'break_down_task', leaving ambiguity about when to use goals versus tasks in this productivity system.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_todo' or 'set_week_theme'. No mention of prerequisites, constraints, or relationships to the goal management workflow (e.g., whether goals must be unique).

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/94aharris/coach-ai'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server