Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
IdeaLift MCP Server

IdeaLift MCP Server

by Startvest-LLC
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

log_decision

Track and document decision outcomes for ideas to maintain an audit trail of lifecycle events, closure categories, and reasoning.

Instructions

Log a decision event for an idea. This creates an audit trail entry.

Event types:

  • created, updated: Lifecycle events

  • accepted, rejected, snoozed, expired: Decision outcomes

  • reopened: Reopen a closed idea

  • merged, superseded: Idea was consolidated

  • shipped: Feature was released

  • ticket_created, ticket_closed: External ticket lifecycle

Closure categories (required for some events):

  • shipped, merged: Positive closures

  • deferred_resources, deferred_priority, deferred_dependency, deferred_timing: Deferrals

  • rejected_scope, rejected_alternative, rejected_invalid, rejected_duplicate: Rejections

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": {
      "ideaId": "<ideaId>",
      "eventType": "<eventType>"
    },
    "name": "log_decision"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ideaIdYesThe ID of the idea
eventTypeYesType of decision event
closureCategoryNoCategory for closure events
reasonNoReason or notes for the decision
confidenceScoreNoConfidence score (0-1)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false and destructive=false. Description adds 'creates an audit trail entry' which clarifies the non-destructive write behavior. Does not elaborate on auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects beyond the annotations.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections for event types and closure categories. Front-loaded with purpose statement. Lengthy enum lists are justified by complexity, though could be slightly more concise.

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?

Comprehensive coverage of 15 event types and 12 closure categories with semantic context appropriate for this complexity. No output schema present; description correctly focuses on input semantics and audit purpose.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Despite 100% schema coverage, description adds substantial value by categorizing enum values (e.g., 'accepted, rejected: Decision outcomes', 'shipped, merged: Positive closures'), explaining semantic groupings that raw schema cannot express.

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?

Clear specific verb 'Log' + resource 'decision event' + scope 'for an idea'. Distinguishes from siblings like create_idea (creates the idea itself) and get_decision_history (retrieves rather than writes).

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?

Extensive taxonomy of event types (lifecycle vs outcomes vs closures) and closure categories (positive vs deferrals vs rejections) provides clear implied usage guidance. Notes closure categories are 'required for some events'. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives.

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