Validates a proposed task selection for feasibility by checking budget, conflicts, and prerequisites.
Check a proposed selection against the budget, conflicts and prerequisites.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tasks | Yes | ||
| budget | Yes | ||
| selected | Yes | ||
| conflicts | No | ||
| prerequisites | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the three validation dimensions (budget, conflicts, prerequisites), but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor how violations are surfaced, though the output schema covers return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the stated purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With five parameters, three required, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is too thin to guide correct invocation. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but input semantics and sibling routing remain missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names budget, conflicts, prerequisites, and 'selection,' but leaves 'tasks' unexplained and does not clarify that 'selected' is a list of task IDs, that conflicts are pairs, or what the prerequisite object shape means.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Check') and object ('a proposed selection') along with the validation criteria: budget, conflicts, and prerequisites. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling planning tools, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus plan_tasks or plan_next_action, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'proposed selection' implies it is used after a selection exists, but that is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.