Fagan

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

request_decision

Escalate a blocking decision to an authoritative overlord, providing a question and options, and receive the ruling plus rationale to proceed.

Instructions

Escalate a blocking decision to the overlord, which rules on the user's behalf per the decision policy. The ruling is appended to the plan's decisions log (audit trail, readable via list_decisions) and returned.

plan_name: the plan's name this story belongs to. story_key: the story's key within that plan's manifest — the story that's actually blocked. question: the specific question you need answered, stated so a ruling of "pick one of these options" fully resolves it. options: the mutually exclusive choices the overlord may rule between, as plain strings (e.g. ["hand-roll a parser", "add a dependency"]). Not free text — the ruling should select one of these verbatim. context: optional — anything the overlord needs to rule correctly that isn't in question itself (constraints, tradeoffs you've already found, why the choice matters). Defaults to empty; provide it whenever the bare question is ambiguous without it.

On success returns a dict with at least "ruling" (the chosen option's text), "rationale", "risk", "tier", "action", and "notify_user" — act on "ruling", not on your own preference. Call this from a story agent when you are blocked on a choice the user would normally make; do not guess.

Fails open: if the overlord backend errors, the story is parked for a human and a single-line escalation message (a plain string, not the dict above) is returned instead of raising — check whether the return value is a str before reading dict keys off it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`context`	No
`options`	Yes
`question`	Yes
`plan_name`	Yes
`story_key`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.4.0Sep 23, 2026

removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```

addedOutput schema / properties

Added value: +{
+  "result": {
+    "anyOf": [
+      {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    ],
+    "title": "Result"
+  }
+}

addedOutput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "result"
+]
```

changedOutput schema / title

Previous value: -"request_decisionDictOutput"New value: +"request_decisionOutput"

First observedv0.1.0Sep 17, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the side effect ('appended to the plan's decisions log'), the return contract (dict with specified keys), and the failure mode ('Fails open... returns a single-line escalation message... check whether the return value is a str'). This is unusually complete.

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?

Although lengthy, the description is densely packed and well-structured: purpose first, then parameter semantics, then usage, then failure handling. Every sentence contributes actionable information, and the return-type caveat is front-loaded in the failure paragraph.

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

Completeness5/5

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

This is a complete standalone description despite having no annotations. It covers what the tool does, when to call it, all parameter meanings, the success return format, the failure return format, and how to distinguish the two. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description documents every parameter in detail. It explains that options must be mutually exclusive plain strings selected verbatim, and that context should be supplied whenever the bare question is ambiguous. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Escalate a blocking decision to the overlord, which rules on the user's behalf per the decision policy.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the siblings by focusing on obtaining a decision rather than modifying stories, plans, or statuses.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it: 'Call this from a story agent when you are blocked on a choice the user would normally make; do not guess.' This gives a clear trigger condition and tells the agent not to guess, which effectively directs behavior away from alternatives.

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