Skip to main content
Glama

company_decision_work_items

List open decision work items from persisted review ledgers: accepted or deferred actions with no outcome yet, showing owner, due date, days to due/overdue, and money at stake. Provide an outcome to close a work item and amend the ledger.

Instructions

List the open decision work items: every accepted or deferred action in the persisted review decision ledgers that has no outcome yet, each with its owner, due date, days to due or overdue, and the money at stake, sealed per ledger; the cadence raises the same items as needs-input work items and closes one when an outcome (done or dropped, with an optional note) is supplied, which amends the ledger one version at a time (payload: optional review_ref).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nowNo
engineNo
operationNolist
entity_refNo
project_idYes
bundle_jsonYes
payload_jsonNo{}

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.2

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses the lifecycle ('closes one when an outcome... is supplied'), the ledger versioning behavior, the optional review_ref payload, and how items are raised as needs-input work items. It does not clarify whether a plain list call has side effects or how the operation parameter changes behavior, but the disclosed context is strong.

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?

The description begins with a clear, front-loaded purpose, but it then becomes a single dense run-on sentence mixing list semantics, lifecycle behavior, ledger versioning, and payload guidance. The content is valuable, but splitting it into separate sentences would improve scannability.

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?

This is a complex seven-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, so the description alone must make invocation possible. It fails to explain the required bundle_json and project_id, the role of operation, or when to use this over related decision/review tools, leaving an agent with significant guesswork despite the rich behavioral detail.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate for the seven parameters. It only mentions 'optional review_ref' as a payload hint; the required project_id and bundle_json, plus operation, now, engine, entity_ref, and payload_json, are left unexplained.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List the open decision work items' from 'persisted review decision ledgers,' with a clear inclusion criterion ('no outcome yet'). It is distinguishable from generic listing or review tools, though the later lifecycle/close discussion slightly blurs whether this tool only lists or also closes items.

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?

The intended use is implied: call this to see accepted or deferred decision actions that have not reached an outcome. However, it never states when to prefer an alternative tool, nor does it mention exclusions such as closed items or other decision-related views.

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