togaf10_EAP_MCP

Prioritize work packages

prioritize_work_packages

Sort work packages into a business-value-versus-effort matrix, flag items blocked by prerequisites, and optionally include delivered items.

Instructions

作業パッケージを事業価値 × 規模の 4 象限に分類し、先行依存で着手できないものに注記を付けて返す。 / Sort work packages into four quadrants of business value against effort, flagging anything blocked by a prerequisite.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "prioritize_work_packages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No	出力言語 / Output language	both
`includeDelivered`	No	完了済みも対象に含める / Include delivered work packages

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a good job: it discloses the classification mechanism, the quadrant count, and the fact that prerequisite-blocked items are flagged. The word '返す/return' signals a non-mutating reporting operation, though it could be more explicit about not persisting changes.

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 two parallel one-sentence statements (Japanese and English) with no filler. It is slightly redundant across languages, but for a bilingual tool this is conventional and still compact.

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?

For a simple tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (quadrant-classified work packages with blockage notes). It leaves the source of the work packages implicit, but the sibling tool set and engagement context make this recoverable.

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 100% for both optional parameters (lang, includeDelivered), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema already documents both.

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 names a specific verb ('Sort work packages') and a precise method (four quadrants of business value against effort), plus the distinct behavior of flagging blocked items. This clearly distinguishes it from roadmap retrieval/editing siblings.

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 makes the intended use apparent: when work packages need a value-vs-effort prioritization view with blockage notes. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the operation is specific enough that selection is clear.

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

Deploy Server