Skip to main content
Glama

mureo_decision_record

Record a proposed decision with its rationale and metrics before surfacing it, so the reasoning survives the session and later links to the change made.

Instructions

Record a decision so the reasoning survives the session. Use it only when you want to PROPOSE first: record status='proposed' BEFORE you surface the proposal, with the figures you judged it on in metrics, your reasoning in rationale and the effect you expect in expected. When the operator approves, make the change and pass the proposal's decision_id on the change-making call: it becomes adopted and is linked to the change. When the operator turns it down or postpones it, record status='rejected' / 'deferred' with supersedes set to the proposal's decision_id — the section is APPEND-ONLY, so a status change is a new record, never an edit. A change made without a proposal needs no record here: pass reason and expected on the change-making call and mureo records the decision itself. Never write an 'adopted' record for a change afterwards — that leaves two decisions for one change. display.proposals is the SCREEN — one moment, replaced whole on every dashboard write; this is the RECORD. decision_id and recorded_at are minted by the server; do not compute either. Every bound below refuses the write rather than truncating it.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoOptional path to STATE.json. Defaults to STATE.json in the MCP server's current working directory. Paths outside it are refused.
titleYesWhat is being decided, in one line (e.g. 'Pause the generic ad group in Search_Lead-Gen').
statusYesWhere the decision stands. 'proposed' before the operator has answered; 'rejected' / 'deferred' afterwards, with `supersedes` set. An approval is recorded by passing the proposal's `decision_id` on the change-making call, not here. 'deferred' is not 'rejected' — 'not now' and 'no' call for different behaviour next week.
metricsNoThe figures the decision was judged on, as they stood THEN (e.g. {"cpa_7d": 5200, "conversions_7d": 45}). At most 20 keys, each value a string, number, boolean or null — a nested object is refused, and so is a string longer than 200 characters (a figure that needs a sentence belongs in `rationale`). Without them a rationale read next month against today's numbers is unfalsifiable.
batch_idNoThe declared change set this decision concerns. A CLOSED batch is fine — the verdict on a bulk pass is normally recorded after it finished.
expectedNoWhat the decision should move, judged when the change it leads to is evaluated (e.g. [{"metric": "cpa", "direction": "down", "target": 4500}]). The verdict is read off one primary metric: a single effect is primary by itself; with several, mark exactly one "primary": true or the record is refused (expected_primary_required). Required for 'proposed' / 'adopted' when ops history is enabled.
platformNoPlatform the decision is about (google_ads / meta_ads / ...), when it is about one.
entity_idNoThe entity's id. Must be given together with `entity_type`.
rationaleYesWhy — the evidence you acted on and the effect you expect. This is the payload: nothing downstream can reconstruct it, and you are the last point at which it exists.
supersedesNoThe `decision_id` of the record this one updates. Required in practice for any status other than the first 'proposed', and validated: it must name a decision already on record.
campaign_idNoCampaign the decision is about, if any.
entity_typeNoSub-campaign entity kind (ad_group / ad_set / placement / ...). Must be given together with `entity_id`.
related_actionsNoPositional indices into the full action_log of the entries this decision produced. Validated against the log — an index past its end is refused.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.33.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / expected / description
      Previous value: -"What the decision should move, judged when the change it leads to is evaluated (e.g. [{\"metric\": \"cpa\", \"direction\": \"down\", \"target\": 4500}]). Its metrics are the primary ones in that evaluation. Required for 'proposed' / 'adopted' when ops history is enabled."New value: +"What the decision should move, judged when the change it leads to is evaluated (e.g. [{\"metric\": \"cpa\", \"direction\": \"down\", \"target\": 4500}]). The verdict is read off one primary metric: a single effect is primary by itself; with several, mark exactly one \"primary\": true or the record is refused (expected_primary_required). Required for 'proposed' / 'adopted' when ops history is enabled."
    • addedInput schema / properties / expected / items / properties / primary
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The effect the verdict is read off. One effect is primary by itself; with several, mark exactly one.",
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.26.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / expected
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "What the decision should move, judged when the change it leads to is evaluated (e.g. [{\"metric\": \"cpa\", \"direction\": \"down\", \"target\": 4500}]). Its metrics are the primary ones in that evaluation. Required for 'proposed' / 'adopted' when ops history is enabled.",
      +  "items": {
      +    "additionalProperties": false,
      +    "properties": {
      +      "direction": {
      +        "enum": [
      +          "up",
      +          "down",
      +          "hold"
      +        ],
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "horizon_days": {
      +        "maximum": 365,
      +        "minimum": 1,
      +        "type": "integer"
      +      },
      +      "metric": {
      +        "enum": [
      +          "cpa",
      +          "cpc",
      +          "cpl",
      +          "cpm",
      +          "conversions",
      +          "cvr",
      +          "ctr",
      +          "roas",
      +          "cost",
      +          "spend",
      +          "clicks",
      +          "impressions"
      +        ],
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "target": {
      +        "type": "number"
      +      }
      +    },
      +    "required": [
      +      "metric",
      +      "direction"
      +    ],
      +    "type": "object"
      +  },
      +  "maxItems": 12,
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / description
      Previous value: -"Where the decision stands. 'proposed' before the operator has answered; 'adopted' / 'rejected' / 'deferred' afterwards, with `supersedes` set. 'deferred' is not 'rejected' — 'not now' and 'no' call for different behaviour next week."New value: +"Where the decision stands. 'proposed' before the operator has answered; 'rejected' / 'deferred' afterwards, with `supersedes` set. An approval is recorded by passing the proposal's `decision_id` on the change-making call, not here. 'deferred' is not 'rejected' — 'not now' and 'no' call for different behaviour next week."
  3. Addedv0.20.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: declares the section APPEND-ONLY (status changes are new records, never edits), states which fields the server mints, and warns that 'Every bound below refuses the write rather than truncating it' — so the agent knows failures are loud, not lossy. It even explains a specific rejection code (`expected_primary_required`), which is behavioral detail no structured field supplies.

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?

Long but front-loaded: the first clause names the core action, then the workflow branches follow. Nearly every sentence carries a rule an agent would otherwise get wrong, though a few points (status='proposed' pre-surface, append-only) are restated in the schema's `status` and `supersedes` descriptions, and the heavy capitalized emphasis verges on prose styling rather than instruction.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers workflow, validation failure modes, ID minting, and lifecycle well. The one substantive gap: it says `decision_id` is minted by the server and must be passed on the change-making call, but never says where the agent obtains it — presumably the response, or `mureo_state_get` — which matters because every downstream step in the workflow depends on it.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description genuinely adds sequencing meaning the schema cannot: that `supersedes` is 'required in practice' for any status after the first 'proposed', that an approval is expressed by passing `decision_id` on a different call rather than via this tool's `status`, and that 'deferred is not rejected'. What it does not add is syntax or unit guidance for `metrics`/`expected` beyond what the schema already documents.

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 verb and resource with its purpose baked in ('Record a decision so the reasoning survives the session'), and distinguishes itself from two things an agent would otherwise confuse it with: the append-only RECORD vs. `display.proposals` which is 'the SCREEN', and the change-making call which records its own decisions. An agent can place this tool without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use ('record status=proposed BEFORE you surface the proposal'), explicit when-not-to ('A change made without a proposal needs no record here: pass `reason` and `expected` on the change-making call'), and the follow-up routing for every branch — approval passes `decision_id` downstream, rejection/postponement uses `supersedes`. Also names a forbidden anti-pattern (writing an 'adopted' record afterwards) with the reason it is wrong.

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