Skip to main content
Glama
cooked-ham

hamgoose

by cooked-ham
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

mission_create

Start a goal-driven mission with guided setup: capture the goal, optional rules, and config overrides, then receive a mission ID and next steps for planning, approval, and execution.

Instructions

Create a hamgoose mission. Use this to START a mission for the user.

Guided setup protocol:

  1. If the user has not stated a clear goal, ask for it (one short question).

  2. Ask ONCE whether they have rules/constraints worth recording (e.g. concurrency limits, provider/model for workers, git on/off, validation toggles). If they say none, proceed with defaults - do not interrogate.

  3. Pass their rules VERBATIM in rules (persisted on the mission; shown in plan and status; given to every worker as context).

  4. Translate rules into config overrides with this map:

    • "max N concurrent agents/workers/subagents" -> {"execution": {"max_concurrent_workers": N}}

    • "one worker at a time" / "sequential" -> {"execution": {"max_concurrent_workers": 1}}

    • "same for validators" -> {"validator": {"provider": ..., "model": ...}}

    • "use / for planning" -> {"planner": {"provider": ..., "model": ...}}

    • "no git / no worktrees" -> {"git": {"enabled": false, "use_worktrees": false}}

    • "skip user-facing testing" -> {"validation": {"user_testing": false}}

    • "no scrutiny validation" -> {"validation": {"scrutiny": false}} Note: workers are always isolated goose run leaf processes (never nested delegation); max_concurrent_workers caps how many run simultaneously.

Returns the mission id, a readiness report and next steps. Next: mission_plan, present the plan, get approval, mission_approve, mission_run.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalYes
repoNo
rulesNo
configNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that rules are persisted, shown in plan/status, and given to every worker, and that workers are isolated 'goose run' leaf processes capped by max_concurrent_workers. It also states that the response includes mission id, readiness report, and next steps.

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 long but organized into a numbered setup protocol with a config override map and a workflow handoff. It front-loads the core purpose, and nearly every sentence carries operational value, though it is denser than necessary.

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?

The description is nearly complete for a mission-creation tool: it covers goal discovery, rule handling, config translation, worker behavior, and next steps, and mentions return contents even though an output schema exists. The main omissions are `repo` semantics and explicit defaults, leaving minor ambiguity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates substantially for `rules` and `config` by requiring verbatim rules and providing a clear natural-language-to-config map. However, `repo` is never explained, and `goal` is only implied, leaving two of four parameters with little semantic guidance.

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 'Create a hamgoose mission' and explicitly says 'Use this to START a mission for the user,' making the resource and verb concrete. The 'Next: mission_plan...' handoff distinguishes it from sibling tools like mission_plan and mission_run.

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 guided setup protocol gives clear when-to-do steps: ask for the goal if absent, ask once about rules, proceed with defaults if none. It also routes to the follow-up workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool in favor of an alternative, but the workflow context 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

Other Tools