Planning System MCP Server

update_goal

Update a goal atomically with changes to title, description, priority, status, committed flag, success criteria, linked plans, and achievers. All modifications apply together.

Instructions

Atomic goal update. Subsumes update_goal + link_plan_to_goal + unlink_plan_from_goal + add_achiever + remove_achiever. All changes apply together.

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": {
      "goal_id": "<goal_id>",
      "changes": "<changes>"
    },
    "name": "update_goal"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`goal_id`	Yes
`changes`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.0Jun 18, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / changes / properties / committed
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
- removedInput schema / properties / changes / properties / goal_type
```
Removed value: -{
-  "enum": [
-    "desire",
-    "intention"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
- removedInput schema / properties / changes / properties / promote_to_intention
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
```
Addedv0.8.1Apr 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses atomicity ('All changes apply together') and lists the subsumed side effects. However, it lacks details on idempotency, error handling, or permissions needed. No contradiction with annotations (none provided).

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with 'Atomic goal update'. It efficiently conveys the key point but could benefit from a clearer structure (e.g., listing subsumed operations separately).

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?

Given the complexity (nested object, multiple subsumed operations) and no output schema, the description provides reasonable completeness about purpose and atomicity. It does not cover return values or error conditions, but for an update tool, it is adequate.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains some parameters via subsumed operations (e.g., add_linked_plans, add_achievers), but does not cover all 'changes' properties (e.g., title, priority). The description adds value by grouping related fields but remains incomplete.

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?

The description clearly states 'Atomic goal update' and lists the subsumed operations (update_goal, link_plan_to_goal, etc.), which distinguishes it from siblings like create_goal, derive_subgoal, and update_node. It uses specific verbs and resources.

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?

The description implies that this tool should be used instead of separate tools for linking plans and managing achievers, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the subsumed ones.

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