Planning System MCP Server

unlink_intentions

Remove a dependency edge from a plan by providing its ID and a reason for removal. Helps manage and audit plan relationships.

Instructions

Remove a dependency edge by id.

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": {
      "dependency_id": "<dependency_id>",
      "plan_id": "<plan_id>"
    },
    "name": "unlink_intentions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dependency_id`	Yes
`plan_id`	Yes	Plan that owns the dependency. Required for the route.
`reason`	No	Why removed. Logged for audit.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.8.1Apr 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description only indicates a destructive action ('Remove') without any annotations. It fails to disclose side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or impact on related data. For a mutation tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but could benefit from additional key details without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and the presence of a missing parameter description, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return values, prerequisites, or behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for an agent selecting this tool.

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 descriptions cover 67% of parameters (plan_id and reason), but the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The required parameter 'dependency_id' lacks a schema description and is not elaborated in the tool description, leaving its semantics unclear.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove a dependency edge by id') and the resource ('dependency edge'), which aligns with the tool name 'unlink_intentions'. However, the term 'dependency edge' could be clarified for users unfamiliar with the domain. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'link_intentions' and 'delete_node'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'link_intentions' or 'delete_node'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the action alone.

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