Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Decision State MCP

Decision State MCP

by Koolercat
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Record Decision

record_decision

Log a decision by specifying the problem, options, selected choice, and rationale, with optional evidence, tradeoffs, and risks to update persistent decision history.

Instructions

Persist a structured decision and update recent_decisions.

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": {
      "problem": "<problem>",
      "options": "<options>",
      "selected": "<selected>",
      "rationale": "<rationale>"
    },
    "name": "record_decision"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
problemYes
optionsYes
selectedYes
rationaleYes
evidenceNo
evidence_contextNo
tradeoffsNo
risksNo
tagsNo
session_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only mentions 'persist' and 'update recent_decisions' without disclosing side effects, permissions, or limits. The tool creates a record, but implications for session state or data integrity are unclear.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but given the tool's complexity, it is under-specified. Not every sentence earns its place because there is only one sentence.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Tool has 10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The minimal description does not provide enough context for an AI agent to use it correctly, especially for optional fields like 'evidence' and 'tradeoffs'.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Description adds no meaning to any of the 10 parameters; it does not explain fields like 'evidence_context' or 'tradeoffs'. Schema coverage is 0%. For a tool with nested objects, this is insufficient.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Persist') and resource ('structured decision'), and mentions the side effect of updating recent_decisions. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'record_evidence' or 'reflect_outcome'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'record_evidence' and 'reflect_outcome' suggest different purposes, but the description does not clarify when one is preferred.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools