agent-reasoning-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

replan

Regenerate a goal's sub-task DAG and adjust intentions when execution blockers or environment shifts occur, rather than creating new goals; returns new subgoals and invalidated intentions.

Instructions

Regenerate sub-task DAG and adjust intentions upon unexpected obstacles or state changes (actions: blocker, event, full). Use replan instead of set_goal when recovering from execution blockers or environment shifts rather than creating new goals.

Returns replanned goal DAG, invalidated intentions, and newly synthesized subgoals.

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": {
      "action": "<action>",
      "goal_id": "<goal_id>"
    },
    "name": "replan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes	Replanning trigger type: blocker, event, full
`goal_id`	Yes	ID of goal to replan
`project`	No	Target project slug
`trigger_event`	No	Event description triggering replanning
`preserve_completed`	No	Whether to preserve already completed subgoals
`blocker_description`	No	Description of the obstacle or blocker encountered

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.1Oct 1, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / action / description

Previous value: -"Replanning trigger type"New value: +"Replanning trigger type: blocker, event, full"

addedInput schema / properties / action / enum

Added value: +[
+  "blocker",
+  "event",
+  "full"
+]

Changed9 schema fields changedv0.2.1Sep 24, 2026
- removedInput schema / $schema
```
Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
```
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / action / description
```
Added value: +"Replanning trigger type"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / action / enum
```
Removed value: -[
-  "blocker",
-  "event",
-  "full"
-]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / blocker_description / description
```
Added value: +"Description of the obstacle or blocker encountered"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / goal_id / description
```
Added value: +"ID of goal to replan"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / preserve_completed / description
```
Added value: +"Whether to preserve already completed subgoals"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / project / description
```
Added value: +"Target project slug"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / trigger_event / description
```
Added value: +"Event description triggering replanning"
```
First observedv0.1.2Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds real context beyond them by enumerating the trigger actions and describing what is produced/side-effected (replanned DAG, invalidated intentions, synthesized subgoals). It stops short of explaining permissions or whether invalidation is reversible, so not a 5.

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 front-loaded sentences with clear routing guidance and no filler. Repeating the action list is mildly redundant with the schema enum, which keeps it from a 5.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description usefully names the return payload and the alternative tool, and annotations cover safety. It is nearly complete, lacking only error/precondition behavior for when replanning fails.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters including the action enum are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the action values ('blocker, event, full') without adding semantics such as how 'full' differs from 'event'. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Regenerate sub-task DAG and adjust intentions' — and explicitly scopes the trigger to 'unexpected obstacles or state changes'. It also names and contrasts against the sibling set_goal, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either 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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use rule plus the alternative: 'Use replan instead of set_goal when recovering from execution blockers or environment shifts rather than creating new goals.' The condition that selects this tool over the sibling is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server