Skip to main content
Glama

Plan a MELRA task

melra_plan
Read-only

Persist a bounded task, evaluate policy, and return a scoped approval challenge without executing. Execution is deferred; policy denials return as normal policy_blocked results.

Instructions

Persist a bounded task, evaluate policy, and return any scoped approval challenge without executing. Nothing runs until melra_execute. A policy denial comes back as a normal result with status policy_blocked and a reason, not as an error. Any operation that is not a read needs requiredEvidence, and constraints must stay empty.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalYesWhy this task is being run, in one human-readable sentence.
budgetNo
identityNoWho is asking, and on whose behalf. Recorded on the task and every receipt, and matched against policy.capabilities when the operator has issued grants. Omitted means the implicit local principal.
operationYes
constraintsNoLeave empty. Freeform prose cannot be enforced, so a non-empty array is denied with freeform_constraints_not_enforceable. Express real limits as forbiddenEffects, budget, or requiredEvidence.
reconciliationNoHow to settle this effect if MELRA never learns whether it happened — a request that went out and was never answered, or a crash mid-flight. Read against the facts that were true before the call (idempotencyKey, url, method), never against a response, because there is none. Declaring these makes the executionGuarantee reconciliation-required instead of at-most-once.
forbiddenEffectsNoEffects this task must never take. Denied before the adapter runs, and honoured even in unhinged mode.
requiredEvidenceNoPredicates that must hold after execution for the task to be verified_success. Required for any non-read operation: a mutation with none is denied with mutation_requires_evidence. An adapter that succeeded while a predicate failed is partial, never success.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: policy denials return as normal results with status policy_blocked and a reason rather than as errors, and nothing is executed until melra_execute. These are non-obvious outcome semantics an agent must know to interpret responses correctly.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the no-execution guarantee. Each sentence carries distinct information (what it does, what it doesn't, denial semantics, evidence/constraint rules) with no filler.

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 a large nested schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral facts: no execution, denial-as-result, and the evidence/constraint rules. It does not describe the shape of the returned plan/approval challenge, but for a planning tool that gap is minor.

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 description coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description's parameter-relevant content (requiredEvidence needed for non-read ops, constraints must stay empty) largely restates the existing schema descriptions for those fields, adding little syntax or format detail beyond them.

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?

States a specific compound verb chain (persist a bounded task, evaluate policy, return an approval challenge) plus the key negative: it does not execute. Explicitly contrasts with the sibling melra_execute ('Nothing runs until melra_execute'), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (melra_execute) and the ordering condition that selects it, implying the plan-then-execute workflow. It also states a prerequisite rule (non-read operations need requiredEvidence). It stops short of an explicit 'use this when X, use execute when Y' routing sentence, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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