aiterm-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

agent_goal

Inspect, create, edit, pause, resume, or clear the real goal for an exact CLI session and launch; user mutations require trusted host provenance.

Instructions

Read or manage the CLI's real goal for an exact session/launch. clear removes the goal without stopping its turn; resume requires a paused goal. Editing objective resets native usage accounting. User mutations require trusted host provenance. No goal store or worker is created.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes
`launch_id`	Yes
`objective`	No
`session_id`	Yes
`token_budget`	No
`expected_thread_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`goal`	No
`reason`	Yes
`schema`	Yes
`binding`	Yes
`harness`	Yes
`outcome`	Yes
`mutation`	Yes
`readback`	Yes
`launch_id`	Yes
`session_id`	Yes
`observed_at`	Yes
`availability`	Yes
`capabilities`	Yes
`native_history`	No
`field_capabilities`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.62.2Oct 30, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / harness / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "enum": [
-      "claude-code",
-      "codex-cli",
-      "grok-cli",
-      "cursor-cli"
-    ],
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "enum": [
+      "claude-code",
+      "codex-cli",
+      "grok-cli",
+      "cursor-cli",
+      "antigravity-cli"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

Addedv0.61.24Oct 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses several important traits: clear removes the goal without stopping its turn, resume requires a paused goal, editing objective resets native usage accounting, mutations require trusted provenance, and no goal store or worker is created. It still leaves some mutation effects and permission details unspecified.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with each sentence adding a specific action constraint or behavioral note. There is no filler, and the most important scoping statement comes first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is fairly complex with six parameters, an action enum, and no annotations, so the description should be more complete. It covers several mutation side effects well, and the output schema can handle return values, but it omits semantics for two parameters and several action modes.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only partially does so. It implies session/launch scoping and gives meaning to objective edits, clear, and resume, but token_budget and expected_thread_id are never mentioned, and the inspect, create, and pause actions are not explained.

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 states a specific resource and scope: it reads or manages the CLI's real goal for an exact session/launch. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, but the phrase 'real goal' and the note that no goal store or worker is created help distinguish it from agent/PTY management tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives useful action-specific conditions, such as clear removing the goal without stopping its turn, resume requiring a paused goal, and user mutations requiring trusted host provenance. However, it does not provide overall when-to-use guidance or name alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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