selfos-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_goal

Create a coached goal with at least one if-then plan, enforcing an active-goal cap unless you explicitly confirm exceeding it. Use it to turn intentions into structured, trackable goals.

Instructions

Create a goal after coaching the user through it. Requires at least one if-then plan. Refuses if over the active-goal cap unless confirm_over_cap is true.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "description": "<description>",
      "why": "<why>",
      "done_looks_like": "<done_looks_like>",
      "plan": "<plan>"
    },
    "name": "create_goal"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`why`	Yes	The user's reasons, in their words
`plan`	Yes	If-then plans: 'When <cue>, I will <action>.'
`unit`	No
`title`	Yes
`metric`	No	What is measured, if numeric
`status`	No
`target`	No
`horizon`	No
`baseline`	No
`obstacles`	No	'If <obstacle>, then <response>.'
`start_date`	No	YYYY-MM-DD (defaults to today)
`description`	Yes	One line: what done looks like
`target_date`	No	YYYY-MM-DD (defaults to today)
`next_actions`	No
`done_looks_like`	Yes
`confirm_over_cap`	No
`checkin_every_days`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the mandatory if-then plan validation and the active-goal cap with a confirm_over_cap escape hatch. It doesn't describe side effects like check-in scheduling or what happens to status defaults, but the key failure modes are disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, hard prerequisite, refusal condition. The most decision-relevant constraint (coaching first) is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 17-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical gating logic an agent must know before calling. It could say more about what is returned (e.g. the created goal's id) and default status/horizon behavior, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 41% across 17 parameters, so the description should carry more weight. It only clarifies the plan requirement (if-then format) and confirm_over_cap's purpose; the metric/baseline/target/horizon/checkin_every_days semantics are left entirely to the schema. Baseline 3 given partial compensation.

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") plus distinctive constraints that separate it from update_goal and list_goals: it requires coaching first and at least one if-then plan. The cap-refusal clause further defines what this tool uniquely does.

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?

"Create a goal after coaching the user through it" gives a clear precondition for when to invoke it, and the cap clause describes the exception path (confirm_over_cap). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like update_goal, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server