Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Fagan

Fagan

by motock
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

approve_plan

Approves a named plan in the Fagan coding pipeline, recording self-approval and skipping the request when plan approval is disabled.

Instructions

Approve a plan.

Fail-closed: when plan approval is disabled the request is skipped and nothing is approved. Self-approval is permitted and recorded.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "plan_name": "<plan_name>"
    },
    "name": "approve_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
plan_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.9.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious traits: fail-closed behavior when approval is disabled, and that self-approval is permitted and recorded. It omits what approval actually does to the plan (state transition), irreversibility, permission requirements, and return behavior.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the action, then the two behavioral caveats. Nothing is padded, though the line breaks make it read as fragments rather than a cohesive sentence.

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?

For a one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important fail-closed and self-approval edge cases but leaves the core effect of approval and any preconditions unexplained. Partially complete rather than sufficient.

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?

The single parameter plan_name has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it, such as whether it must match an existing plan or a naming format. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Approve a plan'), which is unambiguous against siblings like reject_plan, patch_plan, pause_plan, and resume_plan. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from approve_merge, but the resource noun separates the two well enough.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g., the plan must exist or be in a particular state), and no routing to alternatives such as reject_plan or patch_plan. The agent must infer invocation timing entirely from the name.

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