Planning System MCP Server

link_intentions

Create a dependency edge between two existing tasks to express ordering constraints, such as when one task requires another's output.

Instructions

Create a dependency edge between two existing tasks. Use to express discovered ordering constraints (e.g., agent realizes task B requires task A's output). Server rejects cycles. Both tasks must be in the same plan.

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": {
      "from_task_id": "<from_task_id>",
      "to_task_id": "<to_task_id>",
      "rationale": "<rationale>"
    },
    "name": "link_intentions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`from_task_id`	Yes
`to_task_id`	Yes
`relation`	No		blocks
`rationale`	Yes	Why this link. Stored in dependency metadata.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.0Jun 18, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / relation / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "blocks",
-  "requires",
-  "relates_to"
-]New value: +[
+  "blocks",
+  "relates_to"
+]

Addedv0.8.1Apr 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. States mutation ('Create'), cycle rejection, and same-plan constraint. Lacks details on persistence, permissions, or reversal. Adequate but could be richer for a mutation tool.

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 sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value. Ideal conciseness for a tool description.

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?

Covers basic purpose and key constraints (same plan, cycle rejection). Lacks details on error behavior, return values, or verification. With no output schema and no annotations, more completeness would be beneficial for reliable agent use.

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 coverage is only 25% (only rationale has description). Description does not explain 'from_task_id', 'to_task_id', or the 'relation' enum values. Only adds minor value for 'rationale'. Falls short of compensating for low coverage.

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?

Clearly states 'Create a dependency edge between two existing tasks' – a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling 'unlink_intentions' which removes a dependency.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to express discovered ordering constraints' with an example. Mentions constraints: 'Both tasks must be in the same plan' and 'Server rejects cycles.' Could clarify when not to use (e.g., if tasks are already linked).

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